Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Judicial Tyrants Teetering On the Brink”

« The Foley Bergere | Main | Democrats: Discount Every Vote »

October 5, 2006

Judicial Tyrants Teetering On the Brink

Hatched by Dafydd

The campaign by gay activists to force "gender neutral" marriage down our throats via judicial fiat suffered a catastrophic setback today. The 1st (state) District Court of Appeals overturned the ruling by a San Francsico state judge (a year and a half ago) that the state's marriage laws were unconstitutional because they restrict marriage to "a man and a woman."

The sad part is that it was evidently an integral part of the ruling that in California, domestic partnerships are virtually the same as marriages.

In reversing the March 2005 ruling of a San Francisco trial judge, the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed with the state's attorney general, who argued that California's ban on same-sex marriage does not discriminate against gays and lesbians because of the state's strong domestic partner law.

I would hope the court would have overturned the earlier ruling even if we didn't have any domestic partnerships at all; after all, there is no question more clearly left to the people than which relationships they will accept as "marriage."

Alas, I suspect that the court would have ruled differently. But at least they went this far upholding the 2000 ballot proposition by which the people of this state overwhelmingly limited marriage to one man, one woman.

But this is the part I find so amusing, indicating (as it does) that the Left no longer even remembers that the people in a democracy have any say at all:

The ruling does not guarantee, however, that same-sex couples will not ultimately be able to get married in California.

Of course; the voters could vote on a ballot proposition any time they want to allow same-sex marriage. Oh, wait -- that's not what the Associated Press had in mind. Here is the rest of the story:

The ruling does not guarantee, however, that same-sex couples will not ultimately be able to get married in California. Gay marriage advocates said beforehand that they would appeal to the state Supreme Court if the intermediate court did not decide in their favor.

What AP meant was that there was no "guarantee" because a higher court might overturn the appellate court and by golly go back to forcing it upon us willy nilly, whether we like it or not.

Naturally!

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 5, 2006, at the time of 3:45 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1312

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judicial Tyrants Teetering On the Brink:

» It Just Keeps Getting Better and Better from Big Lizards
In my previous post, Judicial Tyrants Teetering On the Brink, I discussed the California state appellate court that overturned the ruling by a San Francisco court requring same-sex marriages (SSMs) in this state, regardless of the 2000 ballot measure t... [Read More]

Tracked on October 6, 2006 6:51 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Xrlq

The sad part is that it was evidently an integral part of the ruling that in California, domestic partnerships are virtually the same as marriages.

I don't think that's right. Admittedly, I've only skimmed the opinion, but what i've seen so far indicates that the principal holding was that marriage is what the legislature/voters say it is - not that gays have a fundamental right to marry, but that right is satisfied by the domestic partnership law.

The above hissed in response by: Xrlq at October 6, 2006 4:16 AM