Judicial Elites Toss Out California Proposition 8

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a homosexual lower court judge's decision to rule that voters haven't a right to define marriage as between two sexes instead of between on sex. Legal fictions are a contemporary fact of life where wealth and power have concentrated through globalization and judicial tyranny may decide law in favor of the rich.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57372620/court-calif-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional/

The decision followed the NFL 'butch bowl contest between two powerful homosexual marriage states; New England vs, New York, with the Giants being the butch victors over the Patriots who as Massachusans are a little tarnished anyway. The President also announced he would accept help from a Super PAC and so perhaps also anticipated some pay back from a happy gay corporate world that devalues individual free enterprise. The Corporate world has purchased so much political influence that individuals are kind of dragged along to rubber stamp candidates conformed to the interests of the rich.

The salient point about the corporate-homo assault upon marriage is that the corruption of civil history was never a necessity to assert the rights of any individuals to have protection from civil abuse. That is, it was necessary to throw out the meaning and phenomena of matrimony in order to put homosexual males living together on an equal footing with pregnant women raising children with a husband who have shared genes to create new, synthetic human beings.

It is simple false that homosexuals must be socially repressed or degraded if they are not regarded as the equivalent of couples sharing pregnancy with traditional reproduction. The basically atheist attack upon traditional families is a way to dissolve the bonds that hold the United States together. In theory when a judiciary becomes consistently corrupt there is no remedy for the people except to end the government and form a new one. Maybe that is in the cards a long way down the road.

The homosexual crowd should have simply established external social welfare policies that make the advantages of marriage superfluous (besides increasing social diffusion of prosperity). They might have also changed contract law and reformed inheritance laws and provisions to enable people not related by blood to have specific rights of inheritance-yet those things exist in some way already and could have been simplified and packaged for the benefit of the perverse.