Prop 8 Unconstitutional

I am sure that just about everyone will have heard this by now, but a California judge has just declared California's recent referendum against gay marriage to be grossly unconstitutional.

What I like about this ruling is that the judge in question was first appointed by none other than Ronald Reagan, and was turned down because of his stands against gay rights. He was reappointed by the first Bush, and approved then.

This isn't stopping right wingers, of course, who are already calling him a liberal and gay himself. They don't seem to want to deal with the fact that he was selected by their demigod, Reagan.

Comments

magpie said…
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples."
Far reaching principles expressed therein...

For what it's worth, the Governator, another Republican, said "a milestone in America's road to equality and freedom for all people".
I think he's right.

Interesting coverage here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/05/us-supreme-court-gay-rights
August 5, 2010 at 7:09 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Image
The woman in this picture, equipped with the weapons and ammunition shown, was found outside a National guard base. She is apparently a big Glenn Beck fan, and believed that the base was a FEMA concentration camp. Think she's the only one out there? You just know this sort of thing is not going to end well.
Read more

If a Tree Falls In the Woods

Image
 And nobody hears it, is it really running for President at all? First of all, a note about my absence lately:  My wife got me to sign up for an account at Threads, which is sort of like X without the assholes.  I've spent a little time establishing myself there, and I have to say, I do like the relatively immediate exchange of views, but I don't mean to give up my blog- there are still so many things that can't be dealt with in a couple hundred words, so, perhaps to your dismay, I am back. So, what motivated the above question is the fact that the Sunday New York Times today had seven articles about Trump, and absolutely zero about Kamala Harris.   The Republicans have a problem with Harris, in that virtually everyone who sees her likes her and immediately understands how qualified she is to be President.  They have tried mightily the last month to find some way to smear her, but have been spectacularly unsuccessful- the tactics of character assassination ...
Read more

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

Image
How can you look like a decrepit old geezer and an out of control two year old at the same time? I thought it might be nice to look in on wingnut world to see how they are taking yesterday's $83 million dollar Trump legal loss.  You kind of know that they will decide it shouldn't affect their opinion of him in any way, but it might be helpful to see just how the Republican party has trained them to reject any fact they don't like.  Not that surprisingly, a lot of the usual wingnut suspects didn't touch this loss at all, preferring to just ignore anything that interferes with their hateful daydreams, but here are a few excerpts from an article at Gateway Pundit, along with a sample of the hundreds of comments it received.  Enjoy.  Or not. "Trump attorney Alina Habba WENT OFF after the crooked New York City court slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for speaking out against the disgusting lies of a crazed woman who said he lured her into a Bergdorf Go...
Read more