California Marriage Remains Respectable

May 26, 2009

Today, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, last November’s ballot initiative to amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Mormons who financially backed Prop 8   celebrated , incidentally.

Me too.

In fact, all of us in the Golden State can breathe a sigh of relief. This ruling has   saved us. We sure wouldn’t want to see California turn into some kind of nuthouse…

Marriage remains a sacred institution here.

In California…

It is illegal for a same-sex couple who has been in love and living together for 40 years to marry. However, if they got married during the summer or early fall of 2008, they may   remain married - they just can’t   get married.

So, California recognizes the full legal rights of thousands of gay and lesbian married couples, but won’t allow any   more couples to join this existing lawful group.


Rest easy, the pre-Prop 8 marriage laws are still here to ensure the purity and wholesomeness of wedded bliss - even in the atypical cases. For example, the following marriage is legal in California:

The day after his 12   th divorce goes through, a white, alcoholic, syphilitic, 85 year-old (twice convicted of spousal battery), Jewish confectioner who was born a woman may marry his cousin, a black, teetotaling, diabetic, 11 year-old, Muslim hermaphrodite as long as   one of the girl’s parents consents to the union, which may be performed by a "pastor" who was ordained that same day by an internet church that has no building or belief system. The couple could have decided to marry at breakfast and be wed by lunch.

Sound like a bad bet for a long, happy marriage? Well, that’s none of your damn business and not for you to say. God and the state have blessed these nuptials.

They still fit neatly under the current definition of traditional marriage between a man and a woman in the state of California.

We should all celebrate that the sanctity of marriage is still intact after the Court’s ruling.



#1 Kyle (Guest) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 at 12:38pm

Great Post!!

If that doesn’t sum it up as the most ass backwards ruling I have seen in awhile, I don’t know what will. Well done christians, I am sure you will all leap at the chance to adopt the children of the above mentioned couple because we wouldn’t want them to be scarred by a evil homosexual couple.

I was hoping California would follow suit with the other progressive states who have recently walked through the door of equality but I guess I will have to wait a little longer. I’m patient.

Keep up the great posts Jim!

#2 potterychick (Guest) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 at 8:06pm

I don’t understand why marriage is the one area where church and state are not separate!

#3 Dave Huntsman (Guest) on Wednesday May 27, 2009 at 10:47pm

The California Supreme Court is required to rule according to the U.S. Constitution.  The people of California can’t write a state Constitution that violates the U.S. Constitution (eg on Equal Equality); and the California Supreme Court has a duty to rule as such when the attempt is made. They didn’t do their main job.

Prop 8 is one of the few things ever attempted that is 100% based on a religious view (unlike abortion, which is mostly - but not completely - based on a religious view).  The California judiciary has acknowledged this in responding to previous amicus briefs. Thus, it is an attempt at establishment of religion, a violation of the U.S. Constitution that the California justices are sworn to protect, and they failed on that score as well.

On many points the issue vis a vis Prop 8 comes down to this: does the U.S. Constitution apply in California? By their ruling, the California Supreme Court says no.

They’re wrong.

#4 Jim Underdown (Guest) on Thursday May 28, 2009 at 10:28am

Dave Huntsman is correct in saying Prop 8 is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

The Center for Inquiry’s amicus brief was the only to make this argument in last year’s case.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.