Re: Calif. State Supreme Court Says Homo***uals Can Actually Marry (Domestic Partner****ps Not Enough)

VRWC Destruction Machine wrote:
>
> The California State Supreme Court changed the California
> Constitution.

No, it did not.

> They twisted the Constitution to fit their girly-man
> agenda. The California Constitution forbids discrimination on the
> basis of "***, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin." It
> does not include ***ual orientation. The justices ruled that ***ual
> orientation is covered in the discrimination clause.

Totally incorrect.

>Wrong. For that,
> an amendment to California's Constitution is needed to define ***ual
> orientation.

As usual, you are wrong.  The justices did not rule on the basis of 
discrimination.

From the opinion:

"Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be 
constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the
state 
to limit marriage only to opposite-*** couples while denying same-*** 
couples any op****tunity to enter into an official relation****p with all or

virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our 
state Constitution prohibits the state from establi****ng a statutory
scheme 
in which both opposite-*** and same-*** couples are granted the right to 
enter into an officially recognized family relation****p that affords all
of 
the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated
under 
state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of
an 
opposite-*** couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the
union 
of a same-*** couple is officially designated a “domestic partner****p.”
The 
question we must address is whether, under these cir***stances, the
failure 
to designate the official relation****p ofsame-*** couples as marriage 
violates the California Constitution."

The court's opinion was based on clauses of the California Constituion
that 
resemble the U.S. Constitution's equal protection and due process clause



>
> California already has a domestic partner****p law. The justices did
> homo***uals a disservice by  usurping the Constitutional rights of the
> California voter.

Again, you are wrong.  California voters or voters from any state do not 
have a right to pass a law that is unconstitutional.

>There's a movement now to amend the California
> Constitution next November. Twenty-six states have approved
> constitutional amendments banning same-*** marriage. Courts in New
> York, Maryland and Wa****ngton state have refused to allow gay
> marriage. New Jersey’s highest court gave the state lawmakers the
> option of establi****ng civil unions as an alternative.
>
> Hollyweird will have to put any plans for a Gay Newlywed Game on hold
> until the next election.


Hollyweird -- how original.  You're just another ****ing dittohead.


> -
>
> I thank God I am not a liberal because I hate Kool Aid.