Correct. Gays and lesbians went to the court supposedly asking for gay marriage for themselves, but requested an order for SSM, which is not narrowly tailored to address their claim, and provides the benefit to everyone irregardless of sex. Strict scrutiny orders MUST be narrowly tailored to address the equal rights issue, and cannot provide the benefit to anyone not before the court. These justices are not stupid: they know doggone well their order is fatally erroneous. The CaSupCt ordered it because they can knowing there is no higher place to appeal an erroneous order to.

Their logic is fatally flawed, and collapses like dominoes. If the court were to order the state to marry lesbians and gays (which would be narrowly tailored), how would two lesbians prove they are lesbians when walking into a marriage office short of “doing it” in front of the clerk? Sexual orientation is NOT immutable as is race or ones actual physical sex, and is therefore not a suspect class. That is the second fatal mistake that the CaSupCt’s prior ruling is based on.

Some courts are about the exercise of arbitrary power. In this regard, the CaSupCt is a modern recreation of “High Commission” (more commonly referred to as the Star Chamber).

My grandfather, Roland G. Usher (head of the history department at Washington University for many years) wrote a book on this, titled “The Rise and Fall of the High Commission”(Oxford: Clarendon Press 1913), It is considered a standard work on the subject. You can read it for free online here: http://www.archive.org/details/theriseandfallof00usheuoft

Like King Henry, the CaSupCt has agenda of its own, secular feminists manipulating the bench (most likely because feminists have a lot of sexual dirt on members of the court to use as judicial motivators), rather than monarchical desires pulling the levers of law from behind a curtain of usurped religious authority.

The King in this instance is apparently Schwartzenegger and Gavin Newsom, who must have a number of back-room connections with the justices themselves. It seems unlikely that Newsom would have taken the extraordinarily risky and radical step ordering SSM’s in San Francisco, without advance arrangements being made aforehand assuring that the CaSupCt would back him up. A ruling against Newsom would have been the end of his political career — a risk career politicians simply do not take blindly.

While this issue is presented as one of “banning gays from marriage,” in truth the issue is about legally defining marriage in a whole new way.

That new definition will be a hybrid, gender-neutral construction in which “husband and wife” is replaced with “Partner A and Partner B.” It most likely will also result in replacing “mother and father” with “Parent A and Parent B.” The latter is necessary so two same-sex partners can have children “together.” This new definition of parenthood would divorce the rights and responsibilities of parenthood from biology. In effect, everyone would be “legal parents” but not necessarily “natural parents.”

Feminism is Marxism in drag. Gay marriage is feminism in lavender.

The great silent majority that we all hope exists has been taken down a very slippery path of mendacity and false arguement. They believe far too much of the crap that feminism has poured out over the past forty years. Cognitive dissonance alone will stop most people from repudiating what they have all been mindlessly mouthing for two generations.

How about putting up a Proposition 9 to have Life-long Marriage allowed only between non-Democrats. Everyone else gets a three year licence, renewable only on payment of $10k (inflation linked, of course). Watch the hew and cry !

They are comparing heterosexuals with Nazis, bigots, racists, sexists, bullies, polygamists, and Jim Crow. They equate Church with Hate. They are stealing lines from Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Some feminist women’s lib slogans are there. It was rather like watching a collection of spoiled children having a mass temper tantrum.

Their true colors are indeed showing. I do not expect this inflammatory, polemic, and gratuitous protest to accomplish much but to alienate a lot of people who might have originally been sympathetic. Most young folks refuse to get involved in this stuff. But they aren’t going to go along with those raising bedlam, because they are looking for lives that are more normal than that of their parents.

Feminists apparently think that pulling redecorated 1960’s Berkeley hippie protests will impress people. The men’s movement found in 2001 that this does not work, with the Bridges for Children protests that were held in 225 cities around the world, organized by myself, Dianna Thompson, and Stu Miller.

This is a new age. Most younger folks are aware of the excesses of the Hippie and feminist movements. They watched their parents botch it. Folks over the age of 55 lived it and personally know the costs. This is undoubtedly triggering alarm bells in their minds.

See: http://jointheimpact.wetpaint.com/page/Protest+Signs

However, I do predict that the Ca SupCt will grant the Prop 8 stay request this coming week. Then the real battle to stop feminism in its tracks will take place. If this comes to pass, I will be involved in at least one Amicus filed with the court. I am confident that my equal rights argument above, when fully cited in light of previous cases and the arguments in this case, will easily prevail.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27738714/

Fox, ABC, CBS are still wisely ignoring them. Drudge has a low-level link to a Yahoo story.

Like everyone else, MSNBC does not understand the difference between banning same-sex marriage and banning gay marriage. The words are used interchangeably, as if rubbing alcohol and vodka were somehow the same thing.

Feminists can no longer address issues directly — their agenda is far too radical for America. they have to masquerade as gays, lesbians, and blacks. Californians did not buy it.

These protests will kick back on feminists badly. Feminists are now calling Catholics “Fascists”. They have outed their agenda and methods. The more name-calling they do, the more they will alienate everyone. Most Americans see right through it.

No it isn’t. Not any more. It’s now a government program packaged with entitlements. Statutory definitions of marriage came tumbling down on account of equal access to government programs and entitlements. In the process, civil rights have been eliminated.

California did not ban “gay marriage”, it banned “same sex marriage”.

I’m close to heading for the airport for a week in the US, David, so I didn’t read your whole long post. But I believe I get this. “Gay marriage” (so to speak – wish people would stop using the PC slang and say what it is) is what everybody has now. The cause of the transition still hasn’t been dealt with. Prop. 8 covered a symptom, not the disease. Passage just means that same-sex couples can’t do it. But everyone else is still stuck with it. Traditional marriage has definitely not been returned to its former status as a protected private institution, free from arbitrary government intrusion.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

Drudge, MSNBC, ABC, FOX, and CBS have not even mentioned it. For everyone, the top story is the Montecito wildfire.

One very interesting thing everyone must understand, which just sank into my mind: California did not ban “gay marriage”, it banned “same sex marriage”.

These are two entirely different issues, with two entirely different scopes of legal meaning. N.O.W. made a tremendous mistake litigating for SSM. It blew their case, and brought America down on feminists.

It appears that most of the protesters are college-aged kids. As we know, feminists run our Universities via women’s studies programs with enforcement of their agenda via inter-disciplinary studies programs and forceful censorship. These protests are a coagulation of entitled women’s studies people and their brain-censored robots, NAMBLA, and other national feminist gay/lesbian groups.

They are attempting to duplicate the 1960’s days of feminist protest which began at U.C. Berkeley, which brought on the feminist sexual liberation movement, leading to California enacting the first no-fault divorce laws. We are hip to the wiles of these people, and the enactment of Prop 8 indicates that even in ultra-liberal California, feminism can no longer get what it wants.

Speaking of forceful censorship: a story of contemporary interest. I went to Knox College in Galesburg, Il (http://www.knox.edu) between 1970 and 1974 with John Podesta, who is now chief of Obama’s transition team and darling of the media. I recall him organizing a raucus campus community-organization event to throw the house mothers out of the girls dormitories, end “open door” policies, end sign-in policies, and make the dorms open and unsecured 7×24. Most of the girls in the dorms that I knew were terrified about having men wandering around the place all the time. The protest was executed, and Knox caved in without a peep. Podesta now heads up the Knox College Board of Trustees.

In late 2001 and early 2002, I was working with some kids at Knox to start a men’s studies program. We all objected to Knox’s heavy involvement in feminist/gay/lesbian activities with censorship of anyone who had other views. I had a lot of quiet support from Knox professors and adminstrative people, who refused to get directly involved because they knew they would get fired. Campus feminists were tremendously incensed and rude. I was censored by Roger Taylor, the President of Knox College. I have a letter on Knox letterhead, bearing Taylor’s signature, announcing that my emails to Knox would be forever censored on the Knox mail server. A number of the kids I was working with, including football and other high-visibility students transferred elsewhere for lack of any other recourse. It has now been six years since realistic views on these issues could be seen by Knox Students. I will be happy to email a PDF copy of the letter to anyone who wants it.

The issue does not revolve around gays and lesbians — it is whether or not America will hand the entire institution of marriage over to radical feminists.

The next time you hear someone talk bad about Ron Paul, or any of his supporters, you need to speak up. We may not agree with him on all of the issues, but he is leaps-and-bounds ahead of anyone else currently serving our government.

I didn’t think much of the guy at first, because he isn’t very “well spoken”, and he seems a little bit “nerdy”, but he’s unimpeachable when it comes to the true content of his character. We need to elect people who will cut off the federal dollars relied on by these feminist hate mongers.

Ron Paul is a far better man than the sum of *all his detractors*.