Posted on 05/18/2008 2:03:06 PM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
The poll is in the middle of the left hand column in the story that it was a tough decision for Ron George.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It never was their “decision” to make - it belongs to the voters.
Do you people remember when Rose Bird and 2 or 3 other CA. supreme court judges were recalled some 30 years ago? I would suggest we do the same with the current SC members that voted to allow gay marriage.
And, the voters said no!
I guess, they didn't like the outcome. Thus, the legislating from the bench.
Looks like my opinion is about as valid as the opinion of the majority of CA voters.
Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision?
75.7 %
Yes
24.3 %
No
35288 total responses
Good Idea, maybe recalling Gov Arrrrnoolld would be another good move. He is trying to rebrand the party into the Austrian Socialist party and MCLAME is going to be there to eat it up.
Maybe a FREEPER protest of their meeting is in order.
GOOD BYE AMERICA.......WE HARDLY KNEW YE!
75.7 percent said yes. That state is hopeless.
He thus equated homo marriage with the rest of our God given rights.
Never again pal. Adios.
Liberals justify every decision by saying it was either ‘difficult’ or ‘complex’.
vaudine
Absolutely right.
Regardless of how one feels about homosexual “marriage” this was legislating from the bench, in direct violation of the will of the people of California. Typical of liberals when they don’t get their way.
This poll needs FReeping.
Would a (FReep this poll) tag in the headline be appropriate?
The poll was in the LA Times. I’m surprised it wasn’t 100% (even more surprised that there was 35K votes).
And .. it’s exactly why the Clintons PACKED THE COURTS for the 8 years they were in office.
And .. it’s exactly why the DEMOCRATS have refused to even vote on Bush’s nominee’s.
I don’t remember how many openings there are - but a sizeable amount of judgeships remain open because the DEMOCRATS will not allow Bush to fill them.
The DEMOCRATS KNOW their ideas cannot pass the voters - so they make phoney cases and bring them to their DEMOCRAT JUDGES - and they get what they want while poking the voters in the eye.
If people don’t believe that .. they should read Mark Levin’s book, “Men in Black” .. it will make you furious.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Romans 1:25-27 tells us that same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love the jealous God with all your being.
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
FReep-A-Poll Ping!
Yep. I remember.
Correction: Not that “Byrd” but former Judge Rose Bird.
I looked at the poll. For all you or I know, the 75% (36153) were folks in Tennesee voting for that "decision" at the newspaper poll.
There's no breakdown on that stats provided by the LA Times. Maybe those employed by the LA Times were promised the pay of 1 extra hour double-pay, if they simply redirected their browsers a few times and voted "yes".
Wrong! 75% agree that the wording of the law violated the state constitution. The California state constitution has broad language that was adopted to abolish the ban on multiracial marriage. There will be a ballot initiative in November that correctly changes the state constitution. It will probably get about 75% of the vote.
I find it incredible that so many so-called conservatives throw a hissy fit when a court refuses to rule on ideology instead of the law.
That’s what I heard too. That the matter was voted on. From what i understand, this is one of many times that the court has been called in to throw out what the majority has voted for in CA. One thing that sticks in my mind is Prop. 187. If something is voted for or against, the State gov. or Governor has the obligation to uphold what the voters wanted, right? Why do they vote at all in CA?
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
It’s not a valid poll. Between Frisco and LA and the rest of “them” around the country, that it who was voting. Besides, its from the LA Slimes. Not valid or scientific at all.
Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision?
74.9 %
Yes
25.1 %
No
36376 total responses
#######################
Its starting to tilt towards the right a little....
(was 75.7 / 24.3 / 35288)
Bump for poll FReeping.
I find it incredible that so many so-called conservatives throw a hissy fit when a court refuses to rule on ideology instead of the law.
Perez V. California Constitution.
From the recent ruling, 172 pages long PDF:
... which found that California’s statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional right to marry, notwithstanding the circumstance that statutory prohibitions on interracial marriage had existed since the founding of the state — makes clear that history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee.
The decision in Perez, although rendered by a deeply divided court, is a judicial opinion whose legitimacy and constitutional soundness are by now universally recognized.
--snip:
A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of pposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite- sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
--end snip
One really has to wonder. I guess the alternative is just too bad to contemplate at the present time.
“Liberals justify every decision by saying it was either ‘difficult’ or ‘complex’.”
Just wondering.....
Why was this decision so “difficult”? If it really was a matter of civil rights, there would be no difficulty in making the right decision at all!
The difficulty was that they new they were making the WRONG decision.
I tried to point this out on an earlier thread on this topic. Amend the Constitution 101. Amazing, isn't it? Blackbird.
Did The People of California vote against gay marriage not to long ago?
Needs Freeping!
If you read the Majority Decision it found that Marriage and Domestic Partnetships are not the same thing. The found the right meaning of those words, but did so for the wrong reason.
The domestic partnerships had all the legal equivalences and benefits of a heterosexual marriage,
but, that isn’t the goal, now, was it?
What sort of arrangement does the term “married couple” mean now? It doesn’t necessarily mean a traditional family unit as it used to. And it also reduces the specialness of that traditional family unit.
I guess, if the traditionalists wanted to fight back in a meaningful way, they could insist on being called a “heterosexual” or “traditional” married couple. But that would be conceding the culture to the left.
The people of California voted for a law that was unconstitutional in its wording. This is the essence of a constitutional republic, as opposed to a (mob rule) democracy.
Recognizing the shortcomings in the wording of Prop 22 approved by the voters in 2000, over 1 million signatures have been collected at "protectmarriage.com" to place a new initiative on the ballot that will amend the state constitution making the ban constitutional. Even this might not be the end of it if the federal judiciary deems the California Constitutional ban to be in violation of the US Constitution.
Hmmm. Was this a prediction of gay marriage as a sign for the last days??
Not even close.
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.