Insanity and More Coverage of Court Opinion on Proposition Backers

The LATimes.com coverage of the California Marriage Amendment is being updated constantly, thanks mostly to Maura Dolan. Let’s look at some of it, shall we?

From this update, which goes into the details of the court’s opinions:

State officials do not have the right to veto a voter-approved initiative, the California Supreme Court said in its ruling Thursday that recognized the right of Proposition 8 backers to defend the state's [duly amended constitution] in court.

“Neither the governor, the attorney general, nor any other executive or legislative official has the authority to veto or invalidate an initiative measure that has been approved by the voters,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakueye wrote for the court.

She said that doing so “would exalt form over substance” and permit public officials who opposed an initiative to invalidate a measure simply by refusing to defend it.

This update has reaction from marriage neutering advocates:

"While a disappointing ruling, this case is now back in federal court, where we expect a quick victory," Lambda Legal's Jon Davidson. "The ruling addresses only a procedural legal question. The key question underlying this case is whether the U.S. Constitution permits a state electorate to treat one group of people unequally to everyone else by depriving them of what the state's high court has held to be a fundamental right.”

It is Constitutional, moral, practical and often necessary to treat different kinds of voluntary associations differently. Everyone has the same access to state marriage licenses, whether they want to use that access or not.

And more reaction from the marriage neutering advocates:

“We disagree profoundly with the California Supreme Court’s holding that a handful of unelected initiative sponsors have the power to represent the interests of the entire public and to override the decisions of the state’s elected executive officers,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

More…

Another gay rights group, Love Honor Cherish, said it had also hoped that the court would decline to give the backers of Proposition 8 standing.

“This ruling means that it may be years before loving gay and lesbian couples will again be able to marry in California," said Love Honor Cherish Board Chair Tom Watson.

Following the positions and actions of the marriage neutering advocates over the years, it is apparent that they decide whether something is good or bad based primarily and almost entirely on whether or not it immediately facilitates or celebrates their quest to orgasm with someone of the same sex. Legal procedures, religions, economic philosophies... whatever they are... if they esteem homosexual behavior then they are good, and if they provide a hindrance to instant gratification or whatever the marriage neutering advocates wants, then they are bad.

They would applaud the death of the California initiative system, even if they liked so many of the past initiatives, if it meant that one of their own could be successful in overturning a duly adopted state constitutional amendment. They don't care right now that it would prevent them from implementing voter initiatives in the future. What matters to them is now, now, now. They're like what you'd have if toddlers went through puberty. Everything must be sacrificed on the altar of their orgasms, even though nobody is stopping them from having them right now. It isn't enough to have freedom unless they can take away the freedom of others to not celebrate their orgasms.

This update had reactions from the backers of Proposition 8.

This update is about how the opinion of the state court is "likely" to persuade the federal courts.

Legal experts said the California Supreme Court's ruling Thursday giving Proposition 8 sponsors the right to defend the anti-same-sex-marriage initiative was so strong that it would likely persuade a federal appeals court and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It's a gangbusters opinion," said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court. "This makes such a strong case that the sponsors represent the state and can represent the state's interests that it pretty much seals the deal.”

UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky agreed. He said the U.S. Supreme Court could rule on the case no earlier than 2013.

Getting back to what I said about how their outlook on everything is put through the filter of their genitals, this is demonstrated on the very same blog in this unrelated update from Tony Perry. The title:

“San Diego Paper to be Sold to Same-sex marriage Foe, Ex-radio Exec"

Got that? Douglas Manchester is defined by the paper by his support of Proposition 8. Like billions of other people alive together and throughout history (the vast majority), Manchester believes that marriage unites a bride and groom. That's hardly a distinguishing characteristic. He's not identified in the headline by his name, profession, hometown, or any other factor. Only as "foe" to an oxymoron.

The San Diego Union-Tribune will be sold to a local developer and a longtime radio executive, the newspaper's owner announced Thursday. Terms were not disclosed.

Platinum Equity, which bought the newspaper in 2009 from Copley Press, announced the sale to developer Douglas Manchester and former radio executive John Lynch.

Is this merely keeping in line with California's new law to insert someone’s homosexuality or gender confusion into school history curricula? "John Doe, who was attracted mostly to men, is seen in this old photo selling produce to Jane Jones (eventual Prop 8 backer), who was known as a regular shopper at this historic grocery store."