PRESTOPUNDIT

SAN FRANCISCO JUDGE to the people of California: I make the laws in this state, your job is to shut up and follow the laws as I pull them randomly out of my ass. In this case this Caesar in black robes has decided that he and his pals on the bench get to invent the laws of marriage for their subjects in California.

In a related ruling, a man in robes from Los Angeles has decreed that henceforth democracy in California has been superseded by the rule of judges. Experts say the U.S. Supreme is likely to sustain the ruling.

Quotable:

A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional .. Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples ..

Around the country, Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its benefits must be extended to same-sex couples. Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution, and on Feb. 4, a New York City judge ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the city.

Note well, this is an AP story not a bit absurdity from Scrappleface or the Onion.

UPDATE: "One Nation, Under Judges, With Tryanny, and Elitism, For All."

UPDATE II: The judge's decree on marriage for his subjects in California can be found here. (pdf)

UPDATE III: More news reports here, here and here. Track blogosphere reactions here.

UPDATE IV: Outside the Beltway:

Michael Demmons .. accuses me, along with Rusty Shackleford, of being "social conservatives." I find this amusing, since I've repeatedly defended the idea of gay marriage on libertarian grounds. My belief that public policy should be made through legitimate processes simply trumps having my preferred outcome prevail.

UPDATE V: Surprise! The LA Times come out in support marriage law by judicial fiat -- and in a bizarre twist of logic it claims that respect for democracy demands that we respect the reasoning of a judge who clearly has contempt for both democracy and our constitutional system. What the Times does its best to whitewash is the fact that we are witnessing an historic conflict between deeply incompatible visions of democracy and the rule of law. I'm with Justice Scalia in believing that folks like this San Francisco judge and the journalists at the LA Times are in favor of a system which destroys democracy and the rule of law as the founders of the state of California and the United States of America conceived these thing. The San Francisco judge and the LA Times would happily do away with all that. They are in favor of the non- violent overthrow of democracy and a constitutional system by the courts. It gets them to their chosen ends. What else matters?

UPDATE VI: Wizbang: "Judicial activism -- it's what's for dinner." Posted by Greg Ransom