Previous | Memories | Tell a Friend | Next
 
happier_bunny
happier_bunny
26 May 2009 @ 05:13 pm
 
It's a LONG opinion, I just got home from Court so I haven't read it yet and I'm trying to get a brief down before I head out of town, so I might not get to this until later with my thoughts.

However, I just wanted to say:

FUCKING COWARDS

They had the opportunity to stand firm on one of the cornerstones that this country was founded on: EQUALITY FOR ALL.

They had the power to make great law today; an opportunity to really define JUSTICE and they blew it.

I can't stop crying about it.

However, I can tell you this. I won't be attending anymore weddings until every citizen in this country can apply for a marriage license. It's spring, the wedding season, well too bad. Maybe if people stop supporting "marriage" with parties and gifts, more people will think about what equality really means!
Tags: ,
 
 
Current Mood: pissed off
 
7 Cynics | Cynical Reply
 
( Post a new comment )
jule1122: by shepard fairey-love unites fist[info]jule1122 on May 26th, 2009 04:17 pm (UTC)
*hugs you very very hard* This si the first time I can remember that I didn't want to log onto IJ because I feel so bad and I just don't know what to say. I wish there was something I could do.
(Reply) (Link)
vlredreign[info]vl_redreign on May 26th, 2009 06:59 pm (UTC)
Pay close attention to page 36 of the decision. From what I read at DKos, there's something amiss there. Not something bad, just something...odd.

I don't speak legalese, so maybe you can give me a layman's description.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
happier_bunny: justin cartoon angry[info]happier_bunny on May 26th, 2009 08:54 pm (UTC)
I haven't gotten to page 36 yet and I'm so tired, I might not tonight. I wish I had more time before I leave.

However, I will say this: Saying this Proposition 8 does not abrogate any of these state constitutional rights, but instead carves out a narrow exception applicable only to access to the designation of the term “marriage,” but not to any other of “the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage . . .” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 781), such as the right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one’s choice and to raise children within that family.

Is crap. They've caved. Ok, we'll let them have the WORD but our citizens still maintain their rights. YOU MORONS, that's all they wanted in the first place.

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
vlredreign: B/J hug 121[info]vl_redreign on May 26th, 2009 09:36 pm (UTC)
That's kinda what page 36 alludes to, from what I gather. That they get to keep the word, and people get to have civil unions not protected by the federal government.

Or something.

Fuck, Bunny...I need a hug.
(Reply) (Parent) (Link)
pour_us_a_road[info]pour_us_a_road on May 26th, 2009 08:48 pm (UTC)
It's all so ridiculous. For a country that was supposedly made on liberty and freedom, it's so sad that this is even an issue.
(Reply) (Link)
meet george jetson...jane, his wife[info]queerasfruit on May 27th, 2009 02:04 am (UTC)
They are fucking cowards. For the Court to forget that they're supposed to protect the rights of minorities... that's fucked.
(Reply) (Link)
Michi: scream[info]michira_70 on May 27th, 2009 12:44 pm (UTC)
They are a bunch of 'Motherfuckers' for me!!
Stupid, cowardly 'Motherfuckers'!!
(Reply) (Link)