Tuesday, November 11, 2008

In the news: Dems try to void Prop 8

Your editor had to get up at five in the morning the day following the election, but was up late practically crying wine-soaked tears (along with Oprah and, presumably, Palin supporters) as Obama gave his first speech as president-elect. The following morning, I was fashioning spears from old table legs, ready to destroy all Mormons (and their allies) as word came on down that Prop 8 had passed in California (gay marriage bans were passed in other states, but nobody is trying to go to those, not even with spears).

I tried to look at things in perspective (civil rights takes time; Obama needs to gain the trust of southern degenerates first, then he can make everybody marry gay people at same-sex weddings and wear Hitler mustaches, like he promised), but I decided to just resign to the fact that secretly-gay, homo-killing cyborgs from the future run the world, and all I can do is watch True Blood and deal with it. But then Gov'ner Schwartzenegger said to keep fighting and that Prop 8 sucks and is for pansies who can't even press their own body weight, and I was impressed enough by this to go ahead and pre-order tickets to Terminator: Salvation, and he's not even in that shit!

Then, from the LA Times yesterday:

Forty-three Democratic legislators, including leaders of the California
Senate and Assembly, filed a brief Monday urging the California Supreme Court to
void Proposition 8.

"This is a Hail Mary, no question about it," said Frank Schubert, manager
of the Proposition 8 campaign.Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown's office would be obligated
to defend the initiative. But Schubert said that if the high court agrees to
hear the case, backers of the initiative would seek to intervene to defend it.In
their brief, lawmakers described the 500,000-vote margin as a "bare majority,"
and said it was "compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal
protection under the law.

"Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision
of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare
majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally
protected minority group," the brief says."If Proposition 8 takes effect, this
court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities," it
continues.The action contends that the ban, created by the initiative that
defines marriage as being between one man and one woman, cannot be done by a
mere constitutional amendment. Rather, it must be done by a revision of the
entire Constitution and the Legislature would have to be involved.

Yeah, whatever. I'm making those spears, just in case.

I'll probably also have a horse's legs...


No comments: