The Ostroy Report

The Ostroy Report is a fresh, aggressive voice for Democrats and a watchdog of the GOP/Tea Party. We support President Obama and the Democratic agenda and seek to preserve the Senate majority while taking back the House. But we're also not afraid to criticize the left when necessary.

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Federal Court Overturns CA's Prop 8 Ban on Gay Marriage. Closeted Republicans Everywhere Rejoice



California's controversial Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages, was overturned Wednesday by a U.S. district judge in San Francisco. The decision was a major victory for gay activists.

Prop 8, or California Marriage Protection Act, was a voter-approved ballot measure in the November 2008 elections. It reversed the prior California Supreme Court ruling that gay couples had a constitutional right to marry.

In his 130-page ruling, Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote: "The evidence shows that Prop. 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution, the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians and because Prop. 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes the Prop. 8 is unconstitutional."

The suit was brought by plaintiffs Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo, a Burbank couple seeking to marry, and was argued by the legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies, bitter foes in the Gore v Bush battle of 2000.

As expected, gays from New York to California rejoiced over the decision, and were no doubt joined in celebration from the likes of Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen and countless other closeted, formerly gay-bashing Washington conservatives humiliated in salacious gay-sex scandals. And while no seemingly heterosexual Republican politician currently serving could outwardly show his euphoria over the ban's reversal, we're certain it was a very different story for those in the GOP (Gay Ole Party) closet.

4 Comments:

  • At 4:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It detracts from your credibility when you throw the nasty barbs at the end of your post.

    Reality?

    The judge is a gay and he wrote an opinion that was based upon that perspective.

    There are varied and many reasons why a state would seek to preserve the institution of marriage as it has historically been recognized. We can argue about the reasons pro and con, but to say that there is no rational basis upon which a state can reserve marriage to it's traditional participants is warped thinking.

    Again, I'm not suggesting that times haven't made things ripe for change. I am talking about whether there could be any RATIONAL basis and clearly there can be.

    This judge had no business judging this case; he has a personal stake in the litigation that transcends the stake that others would have.

     
  • At 8:42 PM, Blogger The Ostroy Report said…

    Credibility? From who, you? I hate to disappoint ya pal, but I have all the credibility I want/need. If you don't like the way I write, find anotehr blog.

    And just for the record, those homophobic douchbags deserve my anger. How's them apples?

     
  • At 10:53 PM, Blogger Kitty said…

    Anonymous:

    What interest would the state have? It can't be procreational, as there is no restriction on couples who cannot or do not choose to have children. You can't say it's ok for straight couples to marry and have no children but not for gay couples to do the same. What other interest could the state have? If there are "many and varied" reasons, why can't you name one? And why couldn't the anti-gay side present any?

    Understand, the state is in no way authorized to uphold tradition or religious principles in administering the law, and in fact has a duty to protect and serve those minorities who are marginalized or harmed by discrimination stemming from tradition or religion or both. It is the court's duty to administer equal protection under the law, and redress grievances done against affected minorities.

    Note that the issue is government issued civil marriage, not religious marriage. Priests and churches can choose not to marry anyone they wish, but the local courthouse and justice of the peace cannot by law discriminate.

     
  • At 4:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Here's one.

    While circumstances can change, by design, a child born to a married heater couple will generally have an opportunity to have strong male and female parental role models making it easier for them to develop healthy relationships with members of both sexes.

    While that won't always be the case as situations play out, it's almost never the case in a gay relationship. Ask Rosie.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home