Tuesday, May 26, 2009

California Supreme Court Upholds State Constitutional Same Sex Marriage Ban

Sort of…


Apparently the amendment was legally sufficient, but the 18,000 same sex “marriages” that occurred between the time California courts struck down the previous statutory same sex marriage ban and the time the State Constitutional Marriage Amendment was passed remain valid. Huh?


While many may see this as a sign that the California courts finally got something right, what has really happened here is the planting of the seeds for the eventual popular overturning of prop eight. No way would the California Supreme Court ever have the guts to strike down the State Amendment, even though its substance would purportedly violate the “reasoning” (and I use the term loosely) upon which the earlier statutory ban was struck down (the court at that time relied primarily on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Texas v. Lawrence, which heinously struck down Texas’ sodomy laws). What the California court did have the guts to do was uphold those 18,000 marriages that occurred in the interim.


Unless Californians find a way to invalidate those purported “marriages” as well, I give the state no more than 5 years before prop 8 is overturned by popular vote. The reason is simple. Homosexuals in California, although temporarily stupefied by their own hatred and intolerance, are not stupid. They’re simply passionate about wanting to force their lifestyle on the rest of society. Here is what will happen now, they will lie low for a few months, and then they will slowly and quietly begin a subtle marketing campaign that can be explained in one simple statement: “See, our marriage does not affect you.” They will patiently and quietly run this campaign until the polls reflect a societal acceptance great enough to overturn prop 8. Then, and only then, will they seek to exert their influence to force acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on the rest of California. That is when things will finally get “ugly,” for those who understand the essential nature of and support true marriage, but by then it will be too late because the majority of Californians will have already become blind to the danger.


Sounds a bit apocalyptic, I know. Probably sounded a bit that way to the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah as well. 5 years. Unless Californians are vigilant, I give it five years.

Race and Gender and the U.S. Supreme Court Bench

Just a quick thought on Obama’s recent nomination of a Hispanic female to the U.S. Supreme Court. Every article I see and every string of comments I see about this on the web includes some comment about the historic nature of appointing the first Latino and the third ever woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. I even noticed one article titled “Latinos Rejoice in Sotomayor Nomination.” available at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.


Excitement over the race and gender of a Supreme Court nominee is all well and good, but how about a balanced dialogue about her qualifications and her approach to the role of a judge in the American Common Law system – particularly about her understanding of the role of the judiciary in interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution?


Contrary to President Obama’s misguided rhetoric, those qualifications do not and should not have anything to do with the current nominee’s “compassion” and “feelings” – two words with dangerously variable interpretations and applications that have nothing to do with interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution, and everything to do with individual perspective and preference. Of course, Judge Sotomayor already understands that. As she explained in a 2001 speech, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Bill Mears & Robert Yoon, CNN, Sotomayor: Gender, ethnicity should influence judges, available at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/. Wow. Frankly, I prefer Chief Justice Roberts’ explanation of his role in the judiciary. When visiting the B.Y.U. School of Law about a year and a half ago, a student asked how Justice Roberts’ judicial philosophy affects his role on the bench. The reply? “When a case involves a statute, I begin by reading the statute and discovering what it says.”


And how about the strength of her opinions that have been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court? Of the at least eight opinions authored by Judge Sotomayor that have been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme court, 6 have been overturned, one is currently on review (in that case Judge Sotomayor held that a firefighter promotion test was invalid because not enough minorities passed it), and in the one that was upheld, “Sotomayor’s legal reasoning was panned in the opinion signed by the entire court.” Robert Yoon, CNN Research Director, Past Sotomayor rulings faced tough crown on high court, available at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.


Feelings? Yeah, I’ve got a feeling, and it’s not a good one, but what do I know about the judicial role in upholding the rule of law in these United States? I’m just a white male. I’ve never “lived that life.”


Tuesday, May 12, 2009

They're here, they're queer, and even if we're used to it we must continue to prostrate ourselves lest we cause hurt feelings.

To elaborate a bit more...

"Political correctness has replaced religion from our schools to our courtrooms to our beauty pageants. One must not ever been seen to give offense, even if to do so is to offend one's self. And an argument can be made that the so-called "gay agenda" isn't so much about equality as it is about superiority. They're here, they're queer, and even if we're used to it we must continue to prostrate ourselves lest we cause hurt feelings. This means Miss Prejean's faith and mores are less valuable to American society as those of Mr. Hilton."

Couldn't have said it any better myself, sad as it is to say...

Obviously, the post is about Carrie Prejean. You can read the rest of the article at: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-3339-Republican-Examiner~y2009m4d22-Carrie-Prejean-Its-not-about-free-speech

I did not click on the link of Mr. Perez's picture (and I don't recommend you do either). I for one have seen all I ever need to see about how his mind works. Juvenile to say the least...

Friday, May 1, 2009

You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

The case involved an insured who was driving her automobile when it ran

out of gas. A friend of the insured drove her to a service station where they filled a gallon jug

with gasoline. While attempting to pour the gasoline from the jug into the tank of the car,

some of it spilled on the insured's feet and also on the friend from the waist down. The insured

used a towel from her car to catch the spilling gasoline and then, in an attempt to dispose of

the gasoline-soaked towel, ignited it with a cigarette lighter and threw it onto the ground.

When the friend saw the burning towel, she moved toward it in order to stamp out the fire, but

instead received substantial burns.

Almany v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 1987 WL 4745, cited in Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watts, 811 S.W.2d 883 (1991).