But its not over till the voters say its over. See part 2 below...
Part 1:
Update on Marriage Case in California:
The Decision:
Here is 150 or so page opinion. I also found 3 hour video footage of the whole argument back in March from both sides online.
If you don't have time/expertise like I don't to read all pages here is decision in short. If I messed this up please forgive me. I just scrolled down till I found conclusions and then scrolled down to read a Dissenters opinion and bolded what I found most interesting. But feel free to view it yourself in its entirety and unbolded...
"A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
The 4 Judges that have redefined marriage in the state of California at the expense of 4.6 million modern day voters and a Californian historical definition of marriage that this court also acknowledged that: "f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman.": GEORGE, C. J., KENNARD, J.,WERDEGAR, J.,MORENO, J.
And the 3 that voted nay,
BAXTER, J.,CHIN, J.,CORRIGAN, J.
one vote from one judge makes the difference for millions of californians!!! Below is dissenters opinion by corrigan, j.
"...I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.......In Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, we struck down a law prohibiting interracial marriages. The majority places great reliance on the Perez court's statement that "the right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice." (Id. at p. 715.) However, Perez and the many other cases establishing the fundamental right to marry were all based on the common understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 54-63.) The majority recognizes this, as it must. (Id. at p. 66.) Because those cases involved the traditional definition of marriage, they do not support the majority's analysis. The question here is whether the meaning of the term as it was used in those cases must be changed. What is unique about this case is that plaintiffs seek both to join the institution of marriage and at the same time to alter its definition. The majority maintains that plaintiffs are not attempting to change the existing institution of marriage. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 53.) This claim is irreconcilable with the majority's declaration that "[f]rom the beginning of California statehood, the legal institution of civil marriage has been understood to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman." (Id. at p. 23, fn. omitted.) The people are entitled to preserve this traditional understanding in the terminology of the law, recognizing that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are different. What they are not entitled to do is treat them differently under the law. The distinction between substance and nomenclature makes this case different from other civil rights cases. The definition of the rights to education, to vote, to pursue an office or occupation, and the other celebrated civil rights vindicated by the courts, were not altered by extending them to all races and both genders. The institution of marriage was not fundamentally changed by removing the racial restrictions that formerly encumbered it. Plaintiffs, however, seek to change the definition of the marital relationship, as it has consistently been understood, into something quite new. They could certainly accomplish such a redefinition through the initiative process. As a voter, I might agree. But that change is for the people to adopt, not for judges to dictate."-CORRIGAN, J.
But the voters in California already suspecting this outcome are not giving up see Part 2: (there is an amazing accomplishment they have recently accomplished and in the process of attempting to accomplish and also see more states that have done the same, it is not that easy to amend a state constitution and that is what is being attempted in California and already done in 26 other states and for those who agree that the definition of marriage is an important one see below from email sent out earlier today). You will see how many millions of voters it takes to override one judges vote when we could have just voted for one more judge that is not going to invent new definitions of words into law in the first place. If we the people want change then not only are presidents and congress important elections but judges are just as much. So pay attention to what kind of judges a candidate/congress will be likely to nominate/approve. Be sure they are consistent with your definition of words!!!
Part 2:
Part of the email sent out earlier today but put it here for context sake to continue from above:
"But check this out!!! Even if the California Supreme Courts deems the voters Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional check out what the voters have been up to for the past 5 months.
California Marriage Amendment Headed to Ballot-""The fact that we will turn in 1.1 million signatures is unprecedented, coming from the grassroots and the churches of this state...The amendment to the state constitution would protect marriage from the courts and the Legislature...The idea that California voters should be the ones to decide this is an idea that resonates with people."
www.protectmarriage.com-"Official web site of the California Marriage Protection Act"
America Votes to Protect Marriage-Check out the demographic graph of states that have already amended their constitutions. "In 2004, thirteen states passed constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The measure received more votes than either presidential candidates, George W. Bush or John Kerry, in all but one state. Four other states had previously amended their constitutions, and two more passed marriage amendments in 2005. In August 2006, Alabama became the twentieth state to protect marriage with a constitutional amendment. Seven additional states passed constitutional amendments on November 7, 2006 (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin). Arizona became the first state in which a marriage amendment did not pass—narrowly losing 49 percent to 51 percent. In an election year marked by victory for Democrats, the passage of seven of eight marriage amendments—27 overall—demonstrates that support for marriage transcends party affiliation." However, Arizona House just....
Ariz. House OKs amendment to ban same-sex marriage-"The current Arizona legislative proposal backed by social conservatives would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The 2006 version had that wording plus a provision that was widely interpreted as targeting civil unions and domestic partnerships."-05/12/2008
I am quite surprised the media hasn't itself focused as much attention on this subject as has Americans despite lack of media coverage!!!! It seems this would make for high ratings on national TV programs but oh yeah I forgot that this doesn't support liberal/progressive politics and we sure don't want conservative politics spreading to other states nor have any limelight in the public media so we will focus only on the negatives of our opponents that aren't so popular with Americans and hide our unpopular negatives. What was I thinking???
Other quick news blip which has been deemphasized in the media at the expense of Bushs' approval ratings:
Congress approval rating at an all time low-this came in one of my email updates from The Heritage Foundation. Approval rating lower then Bush job rating which you can find here. This is an interesting polling site so I will give its home page here. http://www.pollingreport.com/.
Lastly:
I was listening to this 30 minute program on TBN this morning as I was getting the kids ready for school and found it interesting enough to pas on quickly in this email at http://www.rodparsley.com/WatchNow.aspx.
Yanking Back the Balance/Filling in the Gaps/Emphasizing the Missing Headlines
"The Republican-led House's vote was mostly along party lines, with Democrats Jack Brown of St. Johns and Pete Rios of Hayden voting for the resolution. Tucson Republicans Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns voted against it."-Arizona Central commenting on how each party voted in the House in Arizona on this popular with American
