The California Supreme Court have just made a gift of the Presidency to John McCain

[fpb]

And quite possibly saved the Republican Party from defeat. As the nationwide results of their usurpation of legislative power become clear (for gay activists intend to use the details of California law to start a series of cases across the nation - a crazed strategy, but they cannot admit to themselves just how unpopular their case is) the anger of the values voters at Republican corruption and contempt for them will be overwhelmed by their concern at this development. If millions of values voters were quite likely convinced to vote Shrub four years ago by the example of Massachussets (which had no nationwide significance, because Mass. law did not allow outsiders to marry against their home state laws) and of Canada, what will happen if the whole presidential campaign is dotted by assaults on state law across the country? These people ought to have waited until Obama was elected and a Democratic majority safely returned to Congress. If this decision had been passed one year hence, they would probably have Obama in the White House to turn his handsome smile on it, and a filibuster-crushing majority in both Houses. Instead, they have given any Republican who wants to seize it (I cannot speak for the Specters of this world) an opportunity to fight like a junkyard dog. They just never seem to have any sense.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

California is not the Bay Area, but I never said it would be turned red. To do so, all the Latinos would have to be repatriated. What I said is that the idiots are repeating the same tactical mistake they made in 2004, when I said that if I were John Kerry, I would have gone to the Canadian judges and begged on my knees to hold back on gay marriage until I had been elected. And was I wrong then?

Incidentally, about the Obama cult of personality, which I have more than perceived; some Republican commentators mentioned the likelihood of Chicago 68-type riots if Obama is not by any chance nominated. I think that violence in places such as the Bay Area is even more likely if he loses the election. These people were already talking about secession in 2004. This time we might have US Army personnel and Republicans beaten to death in the streets.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

I daresay nobody had control over the timing. The cases were first litigated back when Newsom started issuing marriage licenses in the city in 2004, and the Supreme Court granted cert (or "review," as it's called in California) in 2006. It was just bad luck for them that it happened to get on the docket during an election year.

I think the secession advocates were just crazy fringe types. The SF Chronicle likes publishing them for unfathomable reasons. What they really did after the 2004 elections was to start donating money to the Democrats in reams.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And "crazy fringe types" are unlike the average San Franciscan how?

Seriously, the kind of people who contribute to the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos scare me. They live in a parallel universe. Nothing about them would surprise me - it is the kind of talk that was around in Italy in 1974 when people started organizing terrorist groups.

From today's CNA (Catholic News Agency)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Ten states petition California to delay same-sex marriages

San Francisco, June 2 (CNA).-Attorneys general from ten states on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to delay until November its ruling implementing legal same-sex marriages.

The attorneys general, all Republicans, said if the ruling is implemented on schedule on June 17, the states would be subjected to lawsuits from homosexual couples married in California who seek to have their unions recognized in their home states, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

"An inevitable result of such 'marriage tourism' will be a steep increase in litigation" over whether the couple's home state must recognize their marriage, said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who authored the brief. Shurtleff said delaying the implementation of the ruling would save other states from "premature, unnecessary, unnecessarily difficult, and therefore unduly burdensome litigation in our courts."

The attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina and South Dakota joined the brief.

Each of the ten states has legally banned the recognition of same-sex marriages contracted elsewhere. Unlike Massachusetts, where homosexual marriages have also been legalized, California allows residents of other states to marry even if the marriage would not be legal in their home state.

California voters could overturn the state Supreme Court's decision in the November 3 election with a constitutional amendment that would declare only opposite-sex marriages to be valid. Sponsors of the amendment have submitted petitions bearing 1.1 million signatures, about 400,000 more signatures than required to qualify for the state ballot.

If the amendment passes, courts will then have to decide whether California same-sex marriages contracted before November 3 were valid.