May 26, 2009

prop 8 decision to save California budget

The California Supreme Court, with tremendous wisdom, did not rule on the validity of Prop 8 until after last week's special election. In that special election, Californians smacked down several measures that would have levied temporary additional taxes to cover the current state budget shortfall. Because those measures failed, the state will likely lay off thousands of workers, cut social services to almost nothing, and reduce education funding.

Today, the California Supreme Court possibly saved the entire state by upholding the validity of Prop 8. You may recall that Prop 8 famously outlaws gay marriage by defining marriage, directly within the state constitution, as being between one man and one woman. Today's ruling simply answered the question, "Is the constitutional amendment passed by the voters a valid and legal constitutional amendment?" Their answer: Why, yes, it is a valid amendment.

The court's decision has paved the way for the next lawsuit, which of course will declare that marriage, by the constitution's definition, is by its very nature discriminatory. With marriage itself deemed unconstitutional, all the hundreds of thousands of married heterosexual couples (like me and my wife) will have to rush to register for a civil union. Imagine all the paperwork fees, the printing required! Many will take this opportunity to renew vows, possibly with Pagan ceremonies involving catering. The benefits to the California economy will be staggering.

So thank you, Supreme Court, for saving the California economy. And thank you, Justice Moreno, for supplying the dissenting opinion that so clearly articulates that even a "narrow exception" to equality is inequality and is not to be tolerated.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
writtenwyrdd said...

I think they may have been hampered by being only able to decide on whether the ammendment was legal. That said, I agree with your sarcasm and hope people stop with the hating and discrimination soon. Let's keep our religious beliefs out of government like the founding fathers intended, shall we? (and yes, I know the FFs had their own issues re equality/slavery/women's rights.

Stephen Parrish said...

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Sarah Laurenson said...

Vegan catering, darling.


PJD said...

ROFL, Sarah!

Thank you, Stephen. I am honored by your visit and even moreso by your kind words.

WW, I agree 100%.

Anonymous said...

I am looking forward to the resounding vote that will restore my faith in the hearts and minds of those who live in CA. Makes me want to move back there just so I can vote for equality for all. -Meg

Chris Eldin said...

Continues to boggle the mind how people want to focus on this and not the bigger issues.
I read somewhere recently that even conservative talk show host Scarborough thinks we're wasting time debating gay marriage when we should be working together to fix the economy.

May Vanderbilt said...

Man, this Prop 8 stuff really depresses me--particularly because it was done in God's name. God was FOR equality, the last time I checked.

Even IOWA and NEW HAMPSHIRE have gay marriage now. So much for woo-woo, wacky liberal California.

PJD said...

Meg, I await that vote as well. I just don't understand why so many religious conservatives see gay marriage as a political issue. In the US, this is exactly the kind of issue that conservatives should be telling the government to stay the heck out of. We should all be very nervous when the government legislates morality.

Chris, you know I agree with this. The feds should also stay out of steroids in baseball, the NCAA football "playoffs" issue, and a host of other meaningless time wasters.

May, hear hear! Isn't it odd when Iowa and New Hampshire take the liberal progressive lead and San Francisco and Hollywood regress. I'm guessing it's related to global warming, but I'm not entirely sure.