Most country's citizens are taught that they live in Freedom Country. The commies define freedom as freedom from the tyranny of corporations. Our Freedom Country has lost a lot of it's freedom lately.

Exactly. Other countries are reminding us about how backwards we really are sometimes. In the UK, they're creating laws to let gay people serve in the military and share housing with their partners. Here we're telling gay soliders they should move to the back of the bus and out the exit. Sad.
I agree. But I still think it's sad. We lost our identity. It's sad.

I just love some of the common sense statements contained within Judge Kramer's ruling:

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this State to opposite-sex partners."

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such consitutional violation has become traditional."

"... a statute lacking a reasonable connection to a legitimate state interest cannot acquire such a connection simply by surviving unchallenged over time."

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."

"The idea that California's marriage law does not discriminate upon gender is incorrect."

"To say that all men and women are treated the same in that each may not marry someone of the same gender misses the point."

"The marriage laws establish classifications (same gender vs. opposite gender) and discriminate based on those gender-based qualifications."

"The argument that the marriage limitations are not discriminatory because they are gender neutral is similar to arguments in cases dealing with anti-miscegenation laws."

"... the parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose whom one wants to marry."

"... this court has determined that the State's two rationales (tradition and tradition plus marriage rights without marriage) do not constitute a legitimate governmental interest for the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples."

"Under our present opposite-sex only law, marriage is available to heterosexual couples regardless of whether they can or want to procreate. As long as they choose an opposite-sex mate, persons beyond child-bearing age, infertile persons, and those who choose not to have children may marry in California. Persons in each category are allowed to marry even though they do not satisfy any perceived legitimate compelling government interest in procreation."

"... the denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary."



Judge Kramer is a straight Republican, appointed by Pete Wilson.

So not only is Judge Kramer the antithesis of a so-called "activist judge", but, as this article points out, he also didn't follow the activist judge route.


"It's easy to dismiss Monday's decision as that of an ultraliberal San Francisco judge. But if there's news here, it's that San Francisco's courts are following other courts on a gay rights issue, not leading them.

Even within California, Judge Richard A. Kramer of San Francisco County Superior Court, who issued the opinion, is following the political branches of state and local government, not leading them. He's no judicial activist. San Francisco's city council enacted ordinances recognizing same-sex couples decades ago, and its mayor famously wed same-sex couples a year ago. In the past few years, the California Legislature has enacted laws granting same-sex couples almost all of the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.

Conservatives denounce judges who get ahead of legislatures, alleging that they are trying to change the world with a stroke of the pen, but that's not the situation in San Francisco. Same-sex couples' rights came from its legislature first, its mayor second and the judiciary last."