Pages

▼

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Proposition Hate – it's here to stay

California – the state we Brits tend to associate (rightly or wrongly) with free love, freedom of choice, sunny smiles, easy lifestyles, liberal attitudes and all the rest – has said same-sex marriage is wrong.

The state’s Supreme Court has decided that Proposition 8 is to be state law, thus banning same-sex marriage in the state.

The judges decided 6–1 that the ban was constitutional. However, those already married will stay married.

Tellingly, the only judge who wanted Proposition Hate struck down was both gay and the only Democrat.

The ruling says:

In a sense, petitioners’ and the attorney general’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it.

Gay marriage was legalised in California in May 2008, but then along came Proposition Hate, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, completely ignoring the natural phenomenon of same-sex couplings. That such a notion is Bible-inspired cannot be refuted.

Watch now for the crowing of the religious right.


Update: We learn that some churches in California have condemned the decision.
__________
Related links:
How Brown brown-nosed gays
How to rub it in
Proposition 8's terminator
Interesting times
Posted

1 comment:

  1. Baal's BumWed May 27, 03:51:00 pm BST

    Is it not mainly Mormons stirring up the shit against equality ?
    I read a News Report citing a study yesterday, stating men over 50 tend to sire less intelligent children.
    Is there any correlation here ?

    ReplyDelete

We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.

We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.

Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.

Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.