As most have by now heard, California's Supreme Court reaffirmed the people's sovereignty by today rejecting a challenge to Proposition 8, an initiative on last November's ballot to reaffirm the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
Informed readers will recall that same-sex "marriage" was imposed upon the people of California by a 4-3 vote earlier last year.
Nevertheless, demonstrating that the far Left is nothing if not shameless, the vote was only 6-1. The lone dissenter was Carlos Moreno, who had been under consideration as President Barry's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Justice David Souter.
Ironically, Moreno --- who had been part of the majority imposing so-called same-sex "marriage" upon the people of California --- criticized today's ruling as representing a "drastic and far-reaching change."
Bold words from a man who just last year was redefining an institution which has never constituted what he imposed upon the people of California.
I'm not sure what's more shocking and dismaying in the age of President Barry: that this man was under apparently serious consideration for appointment to the United States Supreme Court, or that any judge on any court could make such an assertion with an apparently straight face.
Interestingly, just a few days ago, the New York Times ran a puff piece on Moreno describing him as in the "dead center" of the California Supreme Court, and demonstrating "surprising humility."
Yeah. It's certainly "humble" to attempt to redefine perhaps the oldest institution of human civilization. Then again, the Times called the California Supreme Court "a moderate to conservative court."
One cannot help but wonder about the color of the sky in their planet.
3 comments:
The courts are only a small part of the problem. The real issue is education. Look at who the People have put in charge of the education of children. With politicians at all levels of government striving to take charge of the education of children, why should we be surprised that adults now cannot figure out the definition of marriage?
Unfortunately, marriage is not the only subject where government-run education has left people confused.
President Barry? I don't get it?
Interesting you revere the "institution" of marriage as one of the oldest. Until recent history, it was the primary vehicle for horrific oppression and a mere property transfer. (Ever "given away" a bride??) It's an institution that needs to be challenged and brought up to date. In fact, people who defend "traditional marriage" need to define what exactly that means, don't you think? Sure, one woman and one man-- but how "traditional" do you want to get? If you are going to be really old school, then your wife really does "belong" to you. Like other things in the bible and other ancient codes for human behavior, the "old way" does not necessarily translate into modern culture.
Unless, of course, you are in favor of treating women like property again. I doubt that, though, cause you sound like a righteous person who believes that people should have rights...
oh... unless they are queer... so my friends who have been together for 15 years and raised 4 children have no rights in the eyes of the law cause they happen to be two women?
You might rethink this sometime. Cause at one time "the old way" of doing things meant, among others, killing disobedient children and not eating shrimp. Marriage is an old institution, but is very much in need of an overhaul.
Thank you, Tim, for commenting.
Next time, you might think about addressing the point, which is that Justice Moreno is ill-positioned to criticize someone else for engaging in "drastic and far-reaching change."
You also might want to consider discussing "marriage," rather than caricaturing it. Of course, everything that you purport to desire to achieve could be achieved through rather simple contracts. Of course, that would not be in accord with your true goal, which is to mainstream perversion.
And by the way, "queers" have the same right to marry any member of the opposite sex who will have them as anyone else, so it is a falsehood to suggest that this is, in any way, about "rights" or "equality."
Post a Comment