13 / August
13 / August
Til Death, or a Court's Ruling, Do Us Part

The California Supreme Court voted 5-2 that the 4,000 or so homosexual couples that received wedding certificates in San Francisco earlier this year were not in fact married. In other words, they ruled (in this case, at least) that one man's whim, even if that one man is the mayor of San Francisco, doesn't supercede laws decided on by the majority of voters. We live in a republic, not a dictatorship.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's reaction to the court's ruling was rather remarkable. "I respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court's decision," the slick opportunist remarked, "but I respect the court and will respect the order."

Gavin Newsom respects the order of five judges. The will of millions of California voters, who defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman, he trampled over. Newsom's response tells us quite a bit about the current liberal mindset.

posted at 12:15 AM
Comments

My response exactly, Dan. The LAW doesn't matter anymore, apparently. Only the decision of the courts.

Proposition 22 is very short and to the point. It adds the following verbage to it's "Family Code":

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This language was approved by the voters of California in a LANDSLIDE.

I'll say it again: by the voters in C-A-L-I-F-O-R-N-I-A!

Not only did it win by an overwhelming margin in California (CALIFORNIA!), but this was in 2000, before any states had taken any real measures to approve homosexual unions, or activist courts to legislate their acceptance.

I think the people of California (CALIFORNIA!) were sending an EXTREMELY clear message designed to prevent exactly what went on in San Francisco.

There should be a serious penalty for this willful refusal by a government official to abide by the laws of his state.

Posted by: Joey Joe Joe Jr. Shabadu on August 13, 2004 09:04 AM

Perhaps the previous commentator has forgotten that the LAW of the land, the consitution, stipulates that it is the job of the courts to interpet the law. To rail against the court system is to rail agaist a law higher than some state proposition. It is to rail against the Constitution of the United States.

Posted by: DB on August 15, 2004 09:47 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?