want to know how you make Charlie bounce out of her chair?

[chanter1944]

Well, other than sticking something sharp on the seat, that is?

this is how you do it.

I read the headline before it, which talked about the Feminist Majority Foundation releasing astatement in celebration of the ruling, and I literally bounced up and squeaked 'Yes, yes!' :D :D :D I know, there's another court ruling coming down the road, but all the *same*. That's just it, actually. All the same. We're the same. That's been acknowledged today, and how.

I believe a suitable exclamation here is 'Currahee!'

Comments

[jewelledfairy.livejournal.com]

Hooray!

[morcath.livejournal.com]

It was an interesting decision, to be sure. Apparently, the will of the majority in a vote doesn't apply when judges don't want it to apply. Further, religious or faith-based motivation for the vote make the results illegitimate.

This isn't sour grapes - I don't live in the States and therefore am not affected by its laws - and I won't claim a complete lack of bias on the issue (as everyone has), but it does seem that Thomas Jefferson labelled it more correctly than anyone should approve of when he called the Judicial the "despotic branch" of the gov't.

[chanter1944]

I really don't mean this as an attack on you, but I have to say: Look at how narrow the majority was when Prop 8passed in California, then talk to me about the will of the majority. And as far as the will of the people not applying when judges don't want it to apply, there's a thing called constitutionality that's in play here. The same type of arguments could have been made if Prop 8 banned interracial marriage, or marriage on the basis of disability, or on the basis of any category you care to think of.

And religious or faith-based motivation for a vote doesn't make that vote illegitimate. Misinformed, maybe, but not illegitimate. It doesn't nullify our right to argue the decision either though, and some of us are religious too.