| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Per Hotair:
That's actually the key ruling here: The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one's ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a "suspect classification" for purposes of the state constitution's equal protection clause.
There's no proof that sexual orientation is immutable. On the contrary - a Google search on the phrase "formerly gay" turns up many listings of people who were formerly gay, and no longer are.
The Court has based its ruling not on the law, but on a Liberal view that they now seek to impose on all of us. This is a massive attack on free speech. The Left lost this argument on the playing field of public opinion, and now the Court seeks to impose a view on us all using the power of the state.
Per Mark Steyn, the Court is acting like they are our "super monarchs," in defiance of their historic duty to merely interpret the law:
...what happened here was not just a sly judicial coup, but an explicit one in the wake of the expressed will of the California electorate, and their elected representatives. And what's interesting to me about this general business of judicial activism, in a period when most sort of sources of authority in society, whether you're talking about politicians or the Church, or I suppose the media, if you mean fellows like Walter Cronkite, when most of those sources have diminished in authority, we have kind of compensated by over-venerating a handful of guys in black robes, just because they happen to be called judges, and sit on a fancy court. And there's no reason for this. It's entirely at odds with the founders' conception of a functioning republic, that in effect, you should turn a handful of judges into super monarchs who can overrule.
This ruling can be overturned by a constitutional amendment that is already heading towards the November ballot. If the Court's ruling were to stand, you can expect to see the ACLU in our grade schools demanding:
The Court was split on this - it was a 4 to 3 decision. Do you object to having four guys in robes tell you what your children can and can't be taught about sexual orientation? Do you want to protect free speech? If so, contribute to ProtectMarriage.com, and sign up on ProtectMarriage.com to help.
