WOW!!!!!!!!

I was at work today and a friend texted me about the supreme court decision to strike down the barbaric law that the voters passed in 2004 which made it legal to discriminate against gay citizens. Thank God for the courts!!!!!  The courts actually weigh the issues and facts and take ignorant emotion out of the process. Of course the caveman Republican religious right "BASE" will be screaming "Activists Judges" this and "Activists Judges" that. What makes this a sweet victory? Some of the "Activists Judges" were Republican. Do you think they are finally seeing right from wrong? Do you think they are sensing public opinion is changing rapidly towards including gay Americans in having the right to pursue happiness? Is the far right the only caveman left and even regular Republicans are evolving?

Here is Drama Queen Dobson's response....It is to be expected...

California Rules in Favor of Same-Sex ?Marriage';
Dr. Dobson Outraged
by Devon Williams, associate editor

'The justices have undermined and endangered the basic building block of society.'

The California Supreme Court ruled today that a law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman is "unconstitutional," allowing same-sex couples to marry within the next 30 days. The ruling struck down Proposition 22, a voter-approved statute protecting traditional marriage.

Dr. James Dobson, founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, is outraged by the court's blatant disregard for marriage and the voters of California.

"The will of the people has now arrogantly been declared null and void," he said. "In so doing, the justices have undermined and endangered the basic building block of society, which has been honored and preserved in every nation on earth through most of human history."

*****************************************************************************************

I find it so ironic how he chooses the word "undermined." My favorite quote from Thomas Jefferson uses "undermine" as well.

Which one is the truth? You decide.

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." Thomas Jefferson Founder of United States 3^rd President (1743-1826)

Now there will be a push to get a Marriage Amendment on the California State Ballot to over rule this ruling. They have already tried to get the million signatures needed. All funded by James Dobson of Focus on the Family. They illegally took signatures from other issues and copied them over to the Marriage amendment. These A holes will do anything to stop gay people from getting health insurance. That is all that comes from a "Marriage Amendment". Nothing is done to effect marriages in the straight world.

Last week 5/9/2008 in Michigan, the supreme court just ruled that 375 state workers will lose their health insurance because of the 2004 marriage amendment on their ballot. It only passed by 59%. And that was because people didn't realize that it is worded so that not only is "marriage" between and man and a woman but also the benefits like health insurance for a spouse as well.

These amendments are sold as "saving marriage" and the truth is that they are worded to attack gay people.

Here is the email I received on May 9th 2008 from Tony Perkins of Family Research Council (He works for James Dobson).

As you read this notice that they could care less that 375 people just lost their health insurance because of them.

The People's Court May 9th 2008   In what is being called "a vindication of the will of the people," the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the state's marriage amendment as applied to state-funded domestic partner benefits. Upholding a lower  court decision, the judges agreed that public employers cannot provide  spousal benefits like health insurance to gay people because it would violate Michigan's constitution. By a 5-2 vote, the court effectively ended the policies of 20 universities, school districts, and local governments which covered an estimated 375 gay committed couples. The ruling was made possible by the 2004 ballot initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and woman. Passed with 59 percent of the vote, the amendment to the state's constitution made the unique status of marriage impenetrable  for gay citizens. Justice Stephen Markman, writing for the majority, addressed the suit's 42 plaintiffs  who claimed that the amendment was meant to ban gay marriage, not eliminate people's benefits .   The judge reminded them that both proponents and opponents of the initiative knew  that the privileges of marriage like, health insurance, would not be extended to gay citizens if the amendment passed.    "The role of this Court is not to determine who said what about the amendment before it was ratified, or to speculate about how these statements may have influenced voters," he wrote.    "Instead, our responsibility is, as it has always been in matters of constitutional interpretation, to determine the meaning of the amendment's actual language."    It is so refreshing to encounter a high court that understands its limitations in resolving some of the nation's most contentious issues! We applaud these justices for recognizing their role and affirming the democratic process. While we celebrate the victory, it should also serve as a prime illustration of how critical the judicial nomination process is. Join us in urging the Senate to put aside their  differences and fill the many bench vacancies with men and women who will submit their personal agendas to the rule of law. For more on  the importance of appointing strict constructionists, log on to  www.usatoday.com and read my column called "Restrain Judicial Activism." Tony Perkins of Family Research Council (Sub Company of Focus on the Family)

How many people would have voted for that amendment if they knew it would take the health insurance away from 375 people?