Homosexual Marriage: California Here We Come?
And the judge happened to be homosexual.
Big shock, right?
Oh, and the governor of the state of California—Arnold Schwarzenegger—and its attorney general—Jerry Brown—who are tasked with upholding the law of the state of California and who were the original defendants in the case . . . failed to failed to defend the measure in court.
You could knock me over with a feather.
As it’s been said, “The fix was in.”
The outrageous thing here—or one of them—is that biology itself tells you that there is a fundamental difference between the union of a man and a woman and same-sex unions. It’s blindingly obvious. But there are none so blind as those who will not see.
The thing is, the voters of California weren’t among the blind. After the California Supreme Court tried to shove homosexual marriage on the populace of the state, the only resource was to pass a constitutional amendment, which the voters did by passing Prop 8.
And they didn’t just do it in any ol’ year. They did it in 2008, which was not only a presidential election (bringing out more voters, making it harder to pass controversial amendments) but also the year in which Californians voted to elect Barack Obama (meaning the liberal end of the political spectrum was dominant at the polls) . . . and the voters still passed Prop 8.
Of course, there is no right for homosexuals to marry each other, either in the California Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. This is simply a case of pro-homosexual elites reading their own values into the law and then forcing them on the people. (Not that the people are in such great shape on this subject, but it remains the truth that the courts are being used because homosexual activists cannot—and have not—gotten what they want through the ballot box.)
So now the case is going to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California and which is notoriously liberal.
Then it will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, no matter who wins.
Depending on how activist the Court is feeling when it hears the case, Americans may wake up one day in the next year or two and find that homosexual marriage has been imposed on the entire country, because the swing vote—Anthony Kennedy—ain’t very reliable on this subject, and recent precedents aren’t very positive.
Oh, and all those folks who voted for Barack Obama? If homosexual marriage becomes the law of the land, they will likely have themselves to thank for this, because Obama will have appointed two justices to the Court by the time it hears the case—justices who will almost certainly be “yes” votes for homosexual marriage. If Obama had not been elected, the chance of an additional one or two “no"s on the court would have been quite real, making the swinging Kennedy vote irrelevant.
See what happens set aside moral issues aren’t at the forefront of what people are voting on?
What are your thoughts?