Inevitability of History Fun Fact

Of the seven California Supreme Court justices who just ruled that the state can't discriminate in its allowance of marriage rights and responsibilities, six were appointed to the bench by Republican governors. Remember that as conservative Republicans go apeshit about judicial activism.

There's going to come a time 10 years or 25 years or 50 years from now when we're going to marvel at how we argued about gay marriage, the same way we now marvel at how we argued about whether blacks should be allowed to use the drinking fountain. We're going to wonder what was the matter with people "back then," and some of us are going to regret what we said and believed.

Comments

[Squidley]

Or maybe this instance of extreme judicial activism will be what spurs some common sense into the populace and bring about the marriage amendment. Such an amendment would need only two parts:

1. A clear statement that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and

2. That states may not create or recognize any relationship that is substatially similar to marriage, such as domestic partnerships or civil unions.

Since homosexual "marriage" is incompatible with our--or any--social order, an amendment is the only solution to this radical, destructive trend.

[Pursuit]

I'm so glad you're here to lead us into the enlightened age Tom.

[Scott]

Both Squidley and Tom presume to believe that someone will give a damn. I predict that it will be what plants crave.

[Adam]

"I predict that it will be what plants crave?"

I don't understand...

[Pursuit]

You got me there too Scott. By the way, It's Pursuit's 18 hours of smoke today. Updates at my place. Damn near burned down the garden this morning, so only can go up from here!

[Tom]

I believe Scott is making a reference to fertilizer. And I believe it's a very clever way of putting it.

[Pursuit]

KISS

[Squidley]

"what plants crave"

Horse flop? Let it be so!

[Squidley]

Incidentally, what four of the seven judges overruled was a California law, passed by the overwhelming majority of its citizens, banning same-sex marriage (and in case you're uncertain what "marriage" means, try a dictionary--I'm sure it'll set you straight).

What it means is that four unelected, unaccountable radicals can subvert the will of the people.

Doesn't this bother anyone else--even a little? Since the leftists can't get their way through the popular vote, they'll get it through the most undemocratic means possible: judicial fiat.

The Founding Fathers intended that the judiciary be the weakest of the three branches. When did it arrogate so much power to itself?

Based on his previous statements, I thought that the Governator would take the Andrew Jackson route and tell the courts to go and enforce their decision themselves, i.e., go pound sand. However, it turns out that he has flip-flopped in the best John Kerry fashion and is now Mr. Rah-Rah about homosexual "marriage."

Bleah.