Saturday, May 17, 2008

But 6 of 7 California Supreme Court appointees were done by Republicans ...

Wikipedia has some stats here. The chief justice and two others were appointed by Pete Wilson. Governor Conan appointed one more. Deukmajian appointed two and Gray Davis appointed one.

Pete Wilson was famous for being a "moderate" Republican who was formerly mayor of San Diego. "Moderate" generally translates to be pro-abortion, systematically socially liberal, but not necessarily opposed to free-market economics. Certainly Schwarzenegger is socially liberal also. That only leaves two appointees by the conservative Deukmejian. The main thing to note about Pete Wilson, however, is that he is the architect of the collapse of the Republican party in California. Republicans have generally been a coalition of economic and social conservatives. By evicting the social conservatives, the Republicans party imploded and hasn't recovered. This implosion looks set to happen nationally since the Bush clan hasn't been economically conservative and the Republican congress has been happy to compromise on both economics and social policy.

The gay marriage ruling of the California Court shares much in common with Roe v. Wade in that with both rulings, the justices invented "rights" based on the personal moral biases and then blatantly lied in the ruling by claiming that they derived them from the constitution through careful reasoning. This works, of course, because there is no agency to hold them accountable in our republic and there are enough other corrupt intellectuals around to back them up.

One commentator I heard noted that the gay 'marriage' advocates had been winning the debate. This is primarily due to the tireless efforts of anti-Christian theologians working from pulpits and seminaries around the country, but also anti-Christian professors and teachers in secular universities and government schools. With some patience, they might have been able to achieve a legitimate democratic ruling. As things stand, the ruling is clearly a monument to intellectual malpractice in the pattern of Roe v. Wade.

There is a theory that this ruling is to put an end to gender discrimination. From what I have been reading, however, gender discrimination theory is always in the GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered) context. Now in case someone doesn't know, a bisexual has sex with both males and females. This means that a minimum of three people are required for a Bisexual 'marriage' and to not allow three would be discriminatory. So where does the discrimination end? Polyamory? Incest? Bestiality? Paedophilia? The same person who advocates gay marriage will generally protest vehemently that she is not supporting pederasty. Why? Is it because society frowns on pederasty? But didn't we just establish that society's standards are trumped by the principal of no discrimination?


Delirious said...

Looney, sometimes I feel that you are far superior to me intellectually, and I hesitate to comment because I have nothing worthwhile to add. But I just wanted you to know that I have learned a lot from you, and I think this post is very insightful.

Looney said...

Thanks. I am a proud idiot frequently too, so don't hesitate to tell me when you feel that way about what I have wrote!