With Prop 8, there's just two words - Rose Bird (vanity)

[PanzerKardinal]

The people of California have voted twice with Prop 22 and with Prop 8 to ban gay marriage in California.

After their defeat, supports of gay marriage are now talking about going back to the California Supreme Court to have gay marriage made legal.

Well, supporters of gay marriage should remember that there once was a person named Rose Bird, she was the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court.

Whenever a death penalty case appeared before her, she would strike it down.

She repeated declared as unconstitutional any laws that would mandate punishments for criminals, like "Use a gun, go to jail."

She and her supporters said that the people of California were blood thirsty rubes who were too ignorant to know better.

Well they forgot something though, in California every judge and justice must every 12 years be reconfirmed by the California voters.

Guess what happened when Rose Bird came up for reconfirmation, well we ignorant blood thirsty rubes voted to kick her out of office.

On November 2, 2010, three members of the California Supreme Court are up for reconfirmation, two of them voted to repeal Prop 22.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that if the California Supreme Court votes again to make gay marriage legal, we stupid hateful rubes will probably make sure those Justices will be finding new jobs in 2011.

[Bush gal in LA]

These judges are so old they probably don't care. What if they do say that this ‘’amendment’’ is unconstitutional? Do we get to draft another one and get a vote on it, or is it over? I'm getting dizzy from all this!

[river rat]

Clearly - there are enough votes in Kalifornicate to impeach every damned “Justice” on Kalifornicate’s Supreme Court...

It would be fun.....and the message MUST be sent.

[PanzerKardinal]

I’m not sure if you around in those day.

The real benefit of the Rose Bird fight was to give the governorship to George Deukmejian.

Remember that in 2010, California will be voting for governor.

Barbara Boxer will be up for reelection to the senate.

Most of the state wide executive offices will be up for election, along with most of the legislature.

Along with three supreme court justices.

So imagine the scenario. The California Supreme Court votes once again to make gay marriage legal. This action has the support of almost every major state office holder.

So you don’t think the peasants are going to be fired up? I suspect if it plays out the way I think it will they’ll be grabbing pitchforks by then.

It’ll be like the tax revolt of Prop 13 all over again.

[pray4liberty]

So you don’t think the peasants are going to be fired up? I suspect if it plays out the way I think it will they’ll be grabbing pitchforks by then.

Your points need to get some traction with the Prop 8 supporters, the black churches, and the Hispanic voters, now. Keep beating the drum and toss every last one of these ingrates out of office.

Tolerance has reached its limits to the point of insanity, and enough is enough.

[NoLibZone]

Conservative votes in California typically get tossed out.

I am so old I recall Prop 187.

In California the only answer is the same one used by our nations founders.

I have the right and good scientific reason to be homophobic.

[Tree of Liberty]

if the CA SC says it's "unconstitutional", it'd be on the grounds that the proposition was a "revision", not an "amendment". Revisions can only be put on the ballot by the General Assembly. Prop 8 was put on the ballot by circumventing the legislature and getting the requisite number of signatures. That process can only be done for amendments.

[Lancey Howard]

It disgusts me that the sodomite activists have resorted to using the rather lowbrow and heavy-handed tactic of trying to hijack and redefine the English word, "marriage", simply because they feel the need to "stick it" to normal, traditional Americans.

The sodomites and lesbians were not satisfied to mind their own business and accept the "civil union" as their gift from liberal state legislatures. No. The "civil union" language didn't cause the uproar and the outrage they had hoped for so they had to find a new way to really get under the skin of the "breeders".

Ahh.... let's demand "marriage". That'll frost 'em!

Personally, I never gave a rat's behind what the sodomites did to each other in the privacy of their own hot tubs, but now I want them to lose on any issue that is of importance to them because it was they, not me, who declared war. To hell with them all.

[Bush gal in LA]

If is was a ‘’revision’’ and was not ‘’legally’’ on the ballot in the first place why did the ‘’judges’’ or whoever is in charge of these ballot initiatives not catch this? Why would they let a vote happen at all that if it were to pass would not be legal anyway?,,, By the way I am really pissed at Arnold who came into office claiming he respected the will of the people! What a crock!

[informavoracious]

It will never be enough. The crux of the problem is that, no matter how many ‘rights,’ and how much acceptance they ‘win,’ there is still a little voice inside their heads telling them that their behavior is wrong. They think if they force everyone to accept and even elevate the behavior, the voice will go away. It won’t. Because the voice is not ours. Some know it, and it is why they are so angry.

[informavoracious]

They are probably threatening Arnold with a boycott like in Utah. No gay dollars spent in Caulieeforneea would be very noticeable.

[Joe Boucher]

Here in Florida we have to vote for retention of judges. Each time I vote NO. I figure they all are going to be retained I just want them all to know they are responsible for their liberal stupidity and judicial activism.

[17th Miss Regt]

If it was a ‘’revision’’ and was not ‘’legally’’ on the ballot in the first place why did the ‘’judges’’ or whoever is in charge of these ballot initiatives not catch this?

The ACLU and frieinds tried to keep it off the ballot. They sued on exactly those grounds and the judges rejected their arguments. Now that Prop 8 has passed, they will go back with the same arguments and try again.

[17th Miss Regt]

No gay dollars spent in Caulieeforneea would be very noticeable.

It would also be a not very credible threat.

[tom h]

"No gay dollars spent in Caulieeforneea would be very noticeable."

Heavens! Just think what it might do to the San Francisco economy. Sorry, Gavin, "whether you like it or not!"

[dr huer]

Give them Garriage!

[goldstategop]

The difference between a revision and an amendment, is that the former is usually understood to a multi-article, more than a single subject revision of the constitution, resulting in a wholesale change to the document's contents. An amendment, is usually a new article or section added to the constitution. By that standard, Proposition 8 is an amendment since it concerns a single subject in fourteen words added as a new section to Art. I of the California Constitution. The ACLU's argument therefore is frivolous and wholly lacking in legal merit. In Oregon, a similar argument on a marriage protection amendment it made was rejected there as well.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[dbz77]

if the CA SC says it's "unconstitutional", it'd be on the grounds that the proposition was a "revision", not an "amendment".

To do that would be ignoring the case law on this issue.

[dbz77]

Give them Garriage!

They might get just that. While the Supreme Court would have to buck the judicial tradition of narrowly defining revisions to overturn Prop 8, a much more likely scenario is they narrowly define Prop 8, ruling that substantive legal benefits are available to same-sex couples.