“I love my wife…but oh, you kid !!!”

California, that great state perched on the precipice of the continental divide and in danger of falling off into the sea (not a bad thing’) has once again produced landmark legislation for the rest of us.

We’ve always heard that the old saw that ‘as California goes…so goes the nation.’

If that’s true, then heaven help us…as we are all doomed.

As you may recall the voters (November 2008) in that state voted 52.5% to 47.5% to toss out same-sex marriages on it’s head and keep the institute of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, if you will. Opponents of the ban argue that they (Adam and Steve) need to have the same equal protection under the law as straight (Man/woman) relationships.

Of course, this is California and even though 7,000,000 citizens voted in support of the bill, we now have a federal judge who has decided that ‘father knows best.’ Basically in his 136 page opinion he told supporting voters to go to hell. He knows what’s best for the state; you measly voters don’t have a clue, back to the mines.

The beatings will continue until morale picks up.

Thankfully, his ruling was place on hold by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco on August 16. This court reinstated a stay on the ruling while the appeals case is heard. Another three-member appeals panel will hear the case during the week of December 6 after deadlines were moved up to November 1 for both sides to file their written arguments.

In looking ahead and thinking about the ramifications of what can happen if indeed the ban is thrown out and Adam can indeed legally marry Steve, what kind of a country will this produce for us’First off over 30 states have marriage defined as between a man and a woman in their constitutions. So, if that provision goes out the window then I would predict that we shall soon see the following;

Child pornography becomes legal and socially acceptable. If we change the existing marriage laws, how can a court rationally decide that someone hung up on watching kiddie porn is harming anyone’Isn’t that also unconstitutional’Doesn’t a five or six year old child have any rights’Why place any age limits on any of this’ As long as no one get hurt or complains, what harm is there’Live and let live as the liberals would say.

Do you see where I’m going’

You talk about a slippery slope; this has to be one of the greatest.

But hold on, suppose I’m not inclined to want to share my life with another human being. Suppose I want to marry ….say a chicken or leave my fortune to my pet goldfish. I know that sounds weird, but what if I wanted to do so’Don’t animals and fish have feelings’

PETA thinks so…..so I’m curious… where would they weigh in on the argument that a dog might be man’s best friend’Would animal rights groups come to the aid of victims (kitties and mice) of spousal abuse’Should the state provide legal representation to those unfortunate animals and creatures who cannot afford to speak (quack, meow or bark) for themselves in court’Once married how would anyone know if Lassie wanted a divorce’Trigger might be able to paw certain things but was he smart enough to understand fidelity’dr. Doolittle where are you now that we need you’

The sad thing in this scenario is that laws can be made and broken from a judicial bench. In spite of what the will of the people may decide, one man can take it upon himself to set those opinions aside and overturn the wishes of the population. He thinks he knows better and is wiser than those in his state.

The voice of the people in this instance mean nothing, just words on the wind.