California Abandons Rule of Law to Suit Gays
The case of Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger), about which I wrote at length here (and in further posts linked at this page), was a case of collusion to produce a desired outcome, namely, the disenfranchisement of the voters of California who passed Proposition 8—in favor of a tiny minority of gay-rights activists, and their left-wing supporters.
Nevertheless, it was just the decision of a single federal district court, in San Francisco. Since both California’s elected governor and attorney general refused to appeal it, the Prop. 8 supporters hired attorneys to prosecute the appeal, only to have it thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court because the supporters lacked federal standing. Dismissal of the appeal meant that Judge Walker’s original decision and injunction—directed only at certain named individuals, and protecting only two gay couples—would become final. As I wrote in this post:
Such a decision would have no precedential value, except to the extent that other district judges—if presented with the same question—choose to follow it. There are four federal judicial districts in California—Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern. Even though Judge Walker has enjoined the Governor, the Attorney General, the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, and the County Clerk-Registrars of Alameda and Los Angeles Counties from applying Proposition 8, he has no ability to extend his injunction to the county clerks of each of California’s 56 other counties. (That is a consequence of the plaintiffs’ bringing in as defendants only those County Clerks whom they knew would not oppose their case.) Moreover, as this commentator points out, Judge Walker did not certify a class of plaintiffs, so arguably his injunction would permit only the named plaintiffs to get marriage licenses. (Watch how quickly the San Francisco County Clerk ignores that limitation.)
Proposition 8 is still the law in 56 counties of California, but neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor the State Registrar will follow it or apply it; instead, they openly defy it. Governor Brown has issued a showcase “order” to all County clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses, even though State law gives him no authority to do any such thing.
Yesterday the California Supreme Court dismissed—without opinion—two petitions for writs of mandate brought by the supporters of Prop. 8. They had asked the Court to order the Governor and the Attorney General to follow the law of this State, instead of subverting it. But the Court could not be bothered with such a non-issue these days as an elected official who disregards the law.
The officials, being all Democrats, are impervious to impeachment proceedings, because their party controls both houses of the Legislature.
And Governor “Moonbeam” Brown is a hopeless case, as is the State Legislature: just this week, the Governor signed into law a bill passed by the Legislature which prevents schools from enforcing gender restrictions for school bathrooms or for sports teams—all to serve the whims of transgender students, who apparently change their minds from day to day about what “sex” they want to be.
It is a truism to point out that as California goes, so eventually goes the rest of the country. With the most lawless President ever at the helm, and the most spineless Congress in history, look for lawlessness to become the way by which all problems will in the future be solved.
But the people must want it that way, because they keep electing Governor Browns and California legislators back into office. And the people will get just what they deserve.
Share this story:
Recent Related Posts
- The Response To North Korea’s Attack On Hollywood Is Disastrous And Cowardly
- Shutting Down Freedom at Marquette
- Ted Cruz’s Good Losing Maneuver
- The GOP: For Wall Street, Not Main Street
- Col. Allen West and the Race Card
- Good Places To Shop If You Have Some Extra Clink
- Do Professors Have a Right to “Academic Freedom?”
Are you reading this?
Advertising on Stand Firm works!
Click here for details.