Friday, May 16, 2008


Although I'm optimistic that this ballot initiative will not come to fruition, and that decent, reasonable people will see that we are not to put civil rights up to a majority vote, as if we had, we would still have Jim Crow laws and segregation as laws of the land, we must not rest until same-sex marriage rights becomes a reality in California and in the rest of the nation.

The "activist judges" that the reactionaries decry, are the same type of "activist judges" on the Supreme Court that ruled that "separate wasn't equal," in the 1954 Brown v Board of Education decision. Had those "activist judges" not so ruled, and had they not seen that full and equal rights are to be granted to all citizens of the United States, and had we allowed majority rule to decide whether or not segregation was to continue, we would have had segregation in perpetuity in the U.S.

If the struggle for African-American civil rights taught us anything, it taught us that the majority can't be trusted, nor should they be trusted, to adjudicate matters of justice that rightly belong to the courts and not to the masses. Believe me, the very same type of people who are decrying the decision of "activist judges" are the same type of people who would have voted to maintain segregation of African Americans!

"Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation's most populous state.

"A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.

"If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

"'We're obviously very disappointed in the decision,' said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. 'The remedy is a constitutional amendment.'"

[For the full article, see here.]

Also see this article.

Also see this article that shows a crucial distinction between the Massachusetts' Court's rationale for its opinion and the California Court's rationale for its opinion.

Let's take heart in God's words through the prophet Isaiah: "No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord." (Isaiah 54:17)
Share |

No comments: