.Common Sense
The Above Linkblogs Might Contain "Borrowed" links.
Linkblogs do not substantially contribute traffic to my blog that I can discover. They all go offsite, and are often accessed from my blog. It's possible to access them from the RSS according to my settings. Still, even if I were to get ads clicking on a linkblog from the RSS won't drive more people to my blog than otherwise because they leave my resources. (Note to self, do more posts, less LBs with sources I find). I explain because I sometimes borrow links from people at Twitter, and often forget who put them up. (To fellow Twitterers: If you have a link to your blog, I will point it there, but Twitter, being impermanent, cannot hold your link for people to discover from there. I only 'borrow' them to get news out to as many people as I can who might not have seen the reports and videos found by the smart people I follow at Twitter or find in search rooms.RSS Add-Me
California Supreme Court Agrees to Review Proposition 8. But Danger Signs Appear. (Udated)
posted 11-20-08
We don't know why the blog mirror worked so poorly today. Here is the orginal post.
The California Supreme Court has already ruled that gays and lesbians are like other oftendisenfranchised minorities. In all logic this should mean that the restoration of marriage as a right for all Californians is just around the corner. But that development isn't certain in the bizarro world we live in.
This is the first time I've read that the Supremes have already affirmed the rights of gays and lesbians as a protected group. I can only put that down to the fact that mainstream news is basically incompetent. They should be offering all pertinent facts that apply to an election before it happens.
All we heard before the election was the old carnard from the right that gays and lesbians should have no rights because "it was a choice".
Funny thing about that; speaking freely is also a choice, but 'free speech' is one of our most important rights.
From the AP report on the subject "A Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban":
the high court had put sexual orientation in the same protected legal class as race and religion, which the California Supreme Court did when it rendered its 4-3 decision that made same-sex marriage legal in May.So in some ways this court battle with the California Supremes is like a 1966 one as describe by LA Times report "Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court":
In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down a 1964 initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin.The difference appears to be:
Opponents challenged [the 1966 measure] on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.But according to the NYT report on the subject "Top Court in California Will Review Proposition 8" the case does argue that Proposition 8 needs to be overturned on equal protection grounds, because that is the plaintiffs' reason for calling Proposition 8 a revision of the constitution, (because it abrogates a human right of a minority and takes away the court's ability to protect it).
The real difference may be that any California Supreme Court Justice that votes for the measure has been promised a recall fight by the pseudo-religious opponents as noted in the currently linked LA Times report above (and only there of the articles I read) and in an earlier report in the Times. Recalls are easily achieved in California especially by those who use religious themes to get church members to vote their way.
San Francisco Chronicle notes in "Prop. 8 foes win right to challenge measure, but problems lie ahead" that the fact that the one justice who voted against reviewing Proposition 8 was Joyce Kennard is a bad sign. Ms. Kennard was one of the 4 judges who orignally voted to allow the marriages.
We've seen how dishonest the anti-same sex marriage group is. In the radio ad they proclaimed that 4 San Francisco judges had okayed same sex marriage in the state against the votes of 4 million people. CA Supreme Court Justices live in San Francisco part of the year because that is where the court is. I'm sure they came from all parts of the state. According to my own research, all but one of the judges was appointed by Republican governors, and the one appointed by Schwarzenegger voted against same sex marriage. So you had judges appointed by Pete Wilson, and George Deukmejian forming the majority of the CA Supreme court majority ruling that said gays and lesbians should have the same rights as everyone else last spring.
These aren't scary liberals. They're only highly qualified jurists making a decision based on the California and US Constitutions.
So, of course, the right wing needs to get them out!
Comments
Notice: All links below go off site, to other Blog-City denizens of my neighborhood. Selection is based by Blog-City widget on tags matching those selected for post above. Unfortunately, the widget's will only put oldest related post posts first, scroll down for most current.
Tag Related Neighborhood Posts
The book recommendations above are done by Amazon.com, not by the authors of this blog. Any proceeds from clicking on ad or buying a book do not resort to the writers or owners of the blog.
Monthly Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006