California Supreme Court’s Opinion is So Gay.

Well by now you have likely heard that the California Supreme Court struck down the State’s ban on gay marriage by a 4-3 vote.  The Court stated that “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”

What an interesting and completely flawed comment.  The State never kept any individual from establishing a loving and long-term committed relationship–it simply did not afford people rights related to marriage if they were the same sex–since that has historically, biblically, and socially never been considered “marriage.”

And immediately, Ellen Degeneres proclaimed that she and Portia were getting married.

Is it just me or does Portia look like the Joker from Batman?  Freaky.  So who is the man in that relationship?  I guess they are more like a gay couple than a lesbian couple–but I digress…again.

So what is next?  If we are going to change our entire system of laws based on the people we have sex with then I think we are headed for dissaster.  Remember–this is not about 2 people “loving” each other and wanting to spend their lives together.  THis is about benefits, divorce, community property, adoption, death benefits, property ownership, credit, income taxes, etc… It’s about providing benefits to people based on their sexual preference.  So how about bisexuals.  Shouldn’t a man who loves a man and a woman at the same time be able to marry them both?  What about a mother that loves her son or daughter, what about a man in India that loves his dog?  Remember that ridiculousness?

 

Well, the dog is cute I suppose–and it never talks back, doesn’t ever want its feet rubbed, can’t hold a credit card, doesn’t care if you drink beer and watch football all day on Saturday, but again I digress…

Of course, there is another side to this tale–for example how else could this person get married if not for the ability for all people to marry who or whatever they want?

I always thought Greg Proops was a man. (the guy from Who’s LIne is is Anyway?)

Guess not. 

Well, not to get into too much of a debate here–but seriously America is this what you want to see walking down the aisle?

I don’t think so.  Marriage is between a man and a woman–period.  Everything else is just plain silly.  James Dobson said it well today when he said, “”What an outrage. It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. … Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny.”

The big point here is that the California Supreme Court is out of control–Judges are supposed to interpret laws not create legislation from the bench.  It is and always has been a State’s right to define marriage—there is nothing unconstitutional about that.  In fact, it is quite constitutional.

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution says:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ”

I believe the people of California, as wacky as they can be, actually voted on this ban and upheld it.–Seems pretty dadgum Constitutional.  But then, I’m not a wacked-out liberal with a social agenda sitting on the high Court of the State.

Good luck California-You will need it.

-Murphy

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Explore posts in the same categories: Current Events, Democrats, Family, funny, God, Government, Humor, Law, Life, News, Thoughts on the World