First, the dubious news:

California Court Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Note, of course, the comments by buffoons Nancy Pelosi (D-Pyongyang) and Ted (Burp!) Kennedy.

“Gay rights” groups hailed the decision, of course, as a step forward in freedom.

It was, of course, nothing of the sort. Rather, it was a huge step backward for Californians, every single Californian, homosexual or not. To arrive at this illogical and preposterous ruling, the California Supreme Court usurped authority not inherent in its constitutional powers, and stripped every single Californian of his/her rights to vote in a meaningful way. Why? Because California voters had already rejected “gay marriage” by an overwhelming margin, in a legal, statewide referendum. This is why all Californians today lost a little more freedom. Of course, I guess that if it’s any consolation, they ought to be used to it by now, living as they do in a liberal-run state (please, no nonsense about The Governator being some kind of conservative; he’s nothing of the sort).

I would say America is going to hell in a handbasket if I believed that California was truly part of America, but I don’t, so at least the slightly more sane 48 other states (no, of course Massachusetts doesn’t count either) haven’t yet lost their freedoms. Yet, of course, is the operative word…

9 responses »

  1. Kelly says:

    Gee, I feel good about living in California for almost the first time today. And I’m straight. And married. It’s weird that I think that my fellow citizens, mobilized into voting a certain way by right-wing preachers/TV pundits/anyone else, shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people who are different than they are. If they had voted in 2000 to not let black people drink out of the same water fountains as white people, I suppose the Supreme Court would be wrong to strike that down as well?

  2. Byron says:

    Morally, no. Legally, YES. Study the way the Constitution is supposed to work, things like “separation of powers” and the like.

  3. Don says:


    You have previously stated that you would tend to do away with “legal sanction against a person doing things to harm himself so long as no one else is tangibly harmed by that person’s choice.” Some have said that gay marriage falls into that category, yet on this issue you come down on the side of increased government regulation. You argue that legalizing gay marriage “redefines marriage in a way so as to make it something I didn’t sign up for.” So basically your saying that gay marriage “tangibly harms” you in some fashion because it devalues your own marriage. Okay, fair enough. I would argue then that this same logic should not be reserved for gay marriage only, but that there are other things in life that also get devalued when we deregulate them.

  4. Byron says:

    Au contraire, mi amigo. “Some have said”, but some would be wrong, misunderstanding the issue involved as government somehow “clamping down on rights” by not allowing “gay marriage”, when in fact the issue is not one of “regulated rights” at all. The issue is one of redefining marriage. Period. Nobody was denied some “equal right” in California prior to Thursday. Nothing was “deregulated” Thursday, because there was no existing “regulated right” to deregulate. Saying that I argue that “legalizing ‘gay marriage'” does something actually mis-states my argument. I would not make the statement that “‘gay marriage’ has been legalized”, because that implies that it is some entity, some “right”, that had been ruled out of bounds previously. I realize that sounds like semantics, perhaps, but I’d argue that it’s not, that rather it’s a distinction that makes a very big difference. “Gay marriage” wasn’t legalized, per se; marriage was radically redefined to include a heretofore-unheard-of-except-in-MA concept, that two people of the same sex could, before the law, be seen in that way.

    That doesn’t mean your final assertion is wrong; I’m not even sure I’d disagree with it in principle, only that I don’t believe this case meets the specs. Perhaps you could persuade me otherwise?

  5. Don says:


    You don’t pay attention. First, I never said I agreed with those that assert gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone. I was merely stating a reality. Second I never said I believe gay marriage was a “right”. But when something that was previously illegal is made legal we refer to it as “deregulation”. You may choose to refer to it in different terms, but that has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.

  6. Byron says:


    Apparently I didn’t understand your point. I would not agree in calling it “deregulation”; that’s the rub, I think. No, of course I don’t think you agree with those folks; what on earth would make you think I thought that? Did YOU pay attention? 🙂

    Use different terminology to make your point; come around the barn a different way, and maybe this thick skull will get it.

  7. Don says:

    Okay then, let me put it another way. You have RIGHTLY concluded that a purely libertarian perspective on the issue of gay marriage does not agree with a Christian worldview, because it radically “redefines” marriage in a way that God never intended for it be. My point is that marriage isn’t the only thing that gets “redefined” when we make it legal. There are other issues in which libertarianism would be at odds with this same reasoning.

  8. Byron says:

    Except that I would not agree. A “purely libertarian perspective” would not, in my understanding, mean that “anything that can be legal should be legal”, which to my way of thinking one would have to say in order to justify this decision; I believe that that’s a skewed definition of libertarianism. Here’s why: a purely libertarian perspective would suggest that there should be no laws restraining behavior in this regard; i.e., no anti-sodomy laws, etc. But I do not understand such purely libertarian perspectives to entail governmental sanction of any/all such arrangements. Translated, if two homosexual men want to live together, do their thing, even go to some “church” and receive its “blessing”, so be it. But that’s not the same thing as the government redefining an institution such as marriage in order to make room for such arrangements, conferring legal standing upon those arrangements. Behavior is protected, not necessarily translated into some special legal standing, according to my understanding of libertarianism.

    That make sense?

  9. Derlin says:

    While I’m not happy about this decision on moral grounds, I’m more concerned that the judicial system was interpreting the constitution and preexisting laws in ways that were not intended, and then overruling a validly enacted law banning homosexual marriages.

    In Maryland, My Maryland there’s been a bill passed around to eliminate marriage from the State’s jurisdiction, and replace it with a “domestic partnership”. Then religious institutions would be free to interpret marriage however they wished. In theory then, I suppose couples could obtain either, both, or neither of the statuses.

    I’d be more enthusiastic about such an idea if it was genuinely driven by the desire to help people care for each other rather than to satisfy the gay marriage lobby. What’s wrong with siblings, friends, father/daughter, etc partnering together for legal benefits?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s