Recently the Obama Administration urged the Supreme Court to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.
The ban emerged as a result of “Proposition 8,” or Prop 8, when put to a statewide popular vote.
The Department of Justice hopes that the Supreme Court will grant “full faith and credit” to same-sex marriages and thus forbid state-by-state banning of them.
What follows are excerpts from the California State Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the ban:
On Proposition 8 as a constitutional amendment:
It is not our role to pass judgment on the wisdom or relative merit of the current provisions of the California Constitution governing the means by which our state Constitution may be altered. We mean — Jesus, Kindergarten Cop was our goddamn governor, fer Chrissakes. We don’t know what the fuck’s going on up in this motherfucker.
Still, it is the finding of this Court, as a statement of fact rather than a legal position, that gay marriage isn’t real marriage, to wit:
• If you’re a dude, you still get blowjobs.
• If you’re a chick, you still get your pussy licked. You continue to go out on dates. To Home Depot and Plumbers Warehouse, but still.
• Lesbian couples never fight about leaving the toilet seat up.
• You have a shot at your partner’s being in the closet and not having to deal with his or her in-laws.
• Gay sex cannot produce children “by accident,” which is responsible for 98% of all marriages. (The other 2% result because she starts crying and a guy will do anything to put a sock in that shit.)
On a constitutional “amendment” vs. constitutional “revision”
Furthermore, the Court holds that Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional ‘amendment’ rather than a constitutional ‘revision.’
What’s the difference between an ‘amendment’ and a ‘revision’? Do we have to spell it out for you?
Oh. We do have to spell it out for you.
Well, one means ‘change.’
The other means, ah, ‘change.’
And, well — oh, fuck it, you bunch of word nerds.
On Proposition 8 violating the equal protection clause:
Describing the effect of Proposition 8 as narrow and limited fails to acknowledge the significance of the discrimination it requires.
On the other hand, ‘narrow’ and ‘limited’ are pretty good adjectives to describe the penises and vaginas, respectively, of the bonnet-wearing, hissy-throwing, sexually repressed Christian dingbats backing this measure in the first place.
Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures seek to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification.
This violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Like — what happened to sticking it to Mexicans? This state was built on sticking it to Mexicans. And to the Chinese. Now there’s a Panda Express every 10 feet and a taco stand every five.
On complaints that it is too easy to amend the California Constitution:
Petitioners’ complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process.
But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it.
On the other hand, the scratch-n-sniff ballots have to go.
Likewise the Pin-the-Plug-in-the-Badonkadonk Game.
On rights retained by same-sex couples under Proposition 8:
Although Proposition 8 eliminates the ability of same-sex couples to enter into an official relationship designated “marriage,” in all other respects those couples continue to possess, under the state constitutional privacy and due process clauses, “the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage.”
Which means no, dude, you can’t “gay marry” instead of “real marry” your girlfriend and then stay out late watching Star Trek: Into Darkness with your friends on opening day at midnight on a Thursday and think you’re going to avoid her nagging bullshit when you get home.
That is some serious science-fiction escapism.
On the state’s obligations to same-sex couples:
All three branches of state government continue to have the duty to eliminate the remaining important differences between “marriage” and “domestic partnership,” both in substance and perception. Such differences are, in the opinion of this Court, a bunch of crap.
Two guys living together can get health insurance, but a guy shacked up with his girlfriend can’t?
If you want free blood work and no co-pay, then you should have to march your assless chaps down the aisle and say ‘I do,’ goddammit.
Gay couples get all kinds of sex all the time, they get parades, they get their own fuckin’ TV networks — plus they can score antibiotics for a sinus infection without auctioning off their extremities?