Posted on 03/05/2009 12:52:45 PM PST by Justaham
The California Supreme Court today appeared inclined to uphold Proposition 8, but showed obvious reluctance to void thousands of same-sex marriages already in place when voters restored a ban on gay marriage last fall.
During three hours of arguments in San Francisco, the justices peppered lawyers opposing Proposition 8 with questions that suggested they do no believe they have the authority to trump the will of the voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
That seems to make sense. In the same way that the "revision" vs "amendment" argument is uphill, trying to end those marriages would also be uphill.
What a keen, well-reasoned argument you make! By that reasoning, we should let people murder, rape and steal if it makes them happy! Please go back to DU, troll.
I sure hope they do the people of California have voted twice for this. Those marriages should have never happned in the first place and I don’t see how they could be legal if this is upheld?
By the right of the people to make their own laws, idiot. Sorry, I seldom ever name call, but you're a raving idiot. Marriage to these leftists has nothing to do with what two people do in the privacy of their own homes - how they themselves view their relationship - but how EVERYONE ELSE WILL BE FORCED TO VIEW THEIR RELATIONSHIP. No one, out of their own conscience, will be able to obey the law of their conscience toward two homosexuals living in sin if this constitutional law is not allowed to stand as valid.
The SCOTUS dissents with your opinion:
...in the early case of Calder v. Bull(1798), the Supreme Court decided that the phrase, as used in the Constitution, applied only to penal and criminal statutes.
Notwithstanding the fact this is a civil code question, an interesting question is raised. Art I, Section 9's Ex Post Facto clause applies to the Legislative branch of the Federal government, not the Judicial branch since they do not write laws, right?
When the Judicial branch ventures past the separation of powers delineated in the USC into the Legislative powers do such prohibition in Sec 9 apply to the Judicial branch.
SCOTUS may say one thing, but there’s no telling what California’s court will do.
Since Prop 8 is an amendment to the state constitution, it may be overturned only if it conflicts with a higher law. The only law higher is the US Constitution, and in that, the only clause that may be applicable is the Ex Post Facto clause. The California court could declare that voiding the “marriages” legally entered into before Prop 8 passed amounts to a punishment of the persons involved.
I don’t see how the courts could overturn Prop 8 completely, but then again I also don’t see how the 4th Amendment guarantees the right to kill a baby.
They are already threatening to riot if Prop 8 stands, and I have every reason to believe them. Homo-fascists are some of the most vicious, uncivilized anarchists that scrounge at the bottom of the societal pond. Supreme selfishness is at the center of their beings, and they will unleash their retribution in violent illegal behavior. There will be violence by their side to make the threats and vandalism perpetrated on Mormons after the election pale in comparison.
I say let them show themselves to the the rabid hyenas that they are. They're crowing about putting up an initiative in 2010 to overturn 8. Well, people are not going to be so sympathetic with savage animals. A counter-proposition will fail miserably.
True
The California court could declare that voiding the marriages legally entered into before Prop 8 passed amounts to a punishment of the persons involved.
If they did that the only imagined "punishment" would originate from the SCOC ruling last may that permitted homosexual marriages. At that time the SCOC knew the issue had qualified for the Nov ballot. I happen to catch some of Ken Starr's Prop 8 oral arguments and I could clearly tell some of the SCOC did not like the blame putting on them.
Starr used the precedence of polygamist marriages being declared null and void which is a fact the SCOC cannot ignore.
I dont see how the courts could overturn Prop 8 completely, but then again I also dont see how the 4th Amendment guarantees the right to kill a baby.
Nor do I, but I understand Ginsburg finds the right to kill a baby in the 14th's "Liberty" clause.
Bizzare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.