Once again, I have to come down from a high. I am excited that Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated to the SCOTUS. I am sad that the California Supreme Court has decided to uphold Proposition 8. That ruling just came down a few minutes ago.
Interestingly, the California court wimped out on us. If, as they have deemed, Proposition 8 is legal, then it would follow that the same sex marriages that they have declared safe, are in fact against the law. Should they not be nullified? Right now, there is a definite two tiered structure in California. When will those on the right, buoyed by the decision today, decide that their gay married neighbors, by just existing, should have their marriage destroyed. Remember, it violates the law of California. I am waiting for them to begin to destroy marriage, to do what they said that they are trying to prevent.
I suggest to all of my glbt (and straight allied) brothers and sisters in California to generate a petition banning divorce, the real destroyer of marriage, throughout California, and to have that law go retroactively, so that all of those married to someone other than their first spouse will be forced to have those first marriages reinstated.
If marriage is in need of protection, then go hard, and see how far you get. Destroy the marriages of the people who married last year in California, and explain why to the public.
3 comments:
I figured you would have posted a comment, so that is why I checked. I find your point on first marriages and divorces interesting and the beginning of real dialogue regarding the institution of marriage...On the matter of gay marriages as it relates to the court's ruling, if I understand the decision correctly, the court deferred change to the constitution to the will of the people. Of course, there is more to discuss regarding this decision, but the energy should now be to shift thinking and approach. ---CC
is this a question of the court in effect "banning gay marriage" OR of the court upholding the people's right to alter their constitution OR is it a question of the rights of the people to alter their constitution in order to deny rights to (certain) the people? and i bet there's tons more!
@The $3000 Dress: I think that the primary question that was resolved was whether or not Prop 8 was an actual amendment to the CA constitution or a revision of an existing law. If I understand it correctly, it is the former; therefore, the court upheld its validity.
I raised the point that I did to show how that type of constitutional amendment could affect those who say supported Prop 8.
Post a Comment