SONICFROG DOT NET

My Thoughts On The Looming Prop 8 Ruling.

For some reason, the guys over at Gay Patriot always seem to get my bloggy juices flowing. Today Dan, a.k.a. Gay Patriot West, wrote a post suggesting how the Same Sex Marriage advocates should refocus their efforts to gain the legal right to marry in the state of California. A commenter replied:

So whether the court should legally uphold Prop 8 is a matter of whether or not we can win a theoretical future to reverse the damage? It’s not a matter of constitutional rights, whether or not the vote or amendment was legal, whether or not the text on the ballot was a revision or an amendment – all of this is irrelevant?

The question before the court is not whether the act of two homosexuals having the legal right to marry. No one in the state of CA has legal standing to bring that case. .. yet. The court ruled that Prop 22 is unconstitutional, so the people of the state who disagree with that ruling, a bare majority but a majority none-the-less, amended the Constitution to say that is not legal for gays to get married. A Constitutional amendment, by its very nature, overrules the courts. That is why the state AG had to argue that Prop 8 was a revision, instead of arguing that it’s still unconstitutional. And before Prop 8 had passed, another group had tried and failed to convince this same court that Prop 8 was a revision instead of an amendment, which is one of the reasons everyone expect this latest challenge to fail.

Now, what will be interesting is how the court rules concerning the status of those already marred and what will happen next. If the court rules that those marriages are null and void, then those couples could stripped of their marriage status could sue to get their married status back. I don’t think this would present a strong case legally. If those marriages are allowed to stand as most expect, then that would open the door to lawsuits by unmarried gays, claiming unequal treatment under the law. This would still be an awfully hard case to win, but it would have a better chance.

Either way, the best course of action is to present a much better campaign to win the hearts and minds of the California public on the merits of allowing gays to be legally married.

We're all Crickets Now.

I used to be a Jester. James Hanson once called anyone who didn’t tow the party line on Anthropogenic Global Warming “jesters”.  So I was a “Jester”, and proud of it. But now I find I have a new designation. Those who are unhappy and protesting about the run away spending spree our government is on… are now “Crickets”.

PS. Note there’s no mention of the Tea Parties taking place across the nation. Perhaps Congress hasn’t heard about them.

Why Rush Limbaugh Is Bad For The Republican Party.

In response to a post extolling the virtues of Rush Limbaugh over at Gay Patriot:

Exibit A: Tyrants (i.e. California) Wants to Ban Black Cars. Over the past several days, I have heard this repeated over and over on conservative talk radio shows. Problem is, It’s False!

There are many reasons to despise the current government actions of both California and the national government. But the Republican brand MUST be the honest broker in this debate, a step above many of the liberal hacks. As long as the party follows the lead of Limbaugh, and he continues to lead the party on blatantly false diatribes, well, who will take you seriously.

PS. I’ve been really busy and haven’t had time to blog. Will improve in future.