It’s always amusing to me that the Radical (more like maniacal) Religious (really? that’s "religious"? There isn’t enough room here to talk about how self-serving and historically inaccurate this group is) Right (oh please…oh so Wrong) always calls these rulings "judicial activism" when they disagree with the ruling. Interpreting the law is their job, mac.

Seems to me that any religious group that decides to get involved in the creation of legislation that overturns this ruling ought to have their 501(c)(3) status revoked and they should start paying taxes like the rest of us…who pay taxes and don’t have the same rights as heterosexuals (who have consistently proven their superior moral standing and abilities in maintaining marriage relations and childrearing, you understand.)

Here, then, is the language of the California Supreme Court in their interpretation of "equal protection under the law":

"Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that Gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

While we believe that all Gay people…all Lesbian people…all bisexual, transgender, questioning, two spirit and intersexed people are worthy and deserving of the same rights, privileges and protections provided in the Constitution… (there’s that little matter of the Ninth Amendment that clearly states, in case anyone was wondering, that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.…chew on that Scalia! Scalia and Thomas and Bork’s inability to interpret this — Bork called the 9th amendment "an ink blot" — only reveals the depth of their fear of people and real democracy) …in any event…we wonder whether aping what is clearly a failed hetero model is the way we want to go?

And of course, now that the decision has come down, CNN has quickly turned to the implications of the ruling: Ellen Degeneres is going to marry Portia DeRossi. Woo Hoo! Lesbians as hetero fantasy! Woo Hoo Show Biz!

CNN is making me ill.