Posted on 11/19/2008 7:39:55 PM PST by goldstategop
Responding to pleas for legal clarity from those on both sides of the issue, the California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would take up the case of whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions was constitutional.
The court, however, stopped short of suspending the ban, which California voters passed as Proposition 8 two weeks ago after an expensive and hard-fought campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"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
The refusal to issue a stay is an ominous sign for the gays marching through the streets.
maybe these judges want everyone to cool off, so they decided not to rule right away.
Maybe, just maybe, these judges, even though they imposed homosexual marriage, actually have some respect left for the rule of law, and legal processes. if they were hell bent on imposing homosexual marriage no matter what, they could easily have come out and said that it was an illegal proposition the morning after.
The results of their further review will tell us what we need to know about their procedures.
This is facetious.
The California constitution provides for ammendment by initiative. There is no reason for the court to hear anything.
"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
Or maybe it’s a set-up for when they over-rule it, so can they can point to these actions as proof of their “fairness”.
Maybe they want to see if anyone has a good argument as to why a state constitutional amendment, which was reviewed and approved before it got to the ballot, and for which all legal procedures were followed by a free and fair vote of the people, should be thrown out just because the results weren’t to the liking of the politically correct crowd.
If the vote had gone the other way, the gay activists would have hailed the results, scored one for the gay agenda, and praised the people’s vote on this issue. It’s only since it went the “wrong” way that they have scorn for the people’s vote now.
I agree with you, they are probably going to say a simple majority is too low a standard to pass this amendment. Even though only 58% of the Supreme Court of California passed wrote the law.
Florida decided after the signitures were collected to get their amendment on the ballot that 60% was necessary.
How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? It’s part of the constitution!!
Its called “Black Collar Crime.”
This is BULL. We voted on it TWICE. The people just have absolutely no power at all any more. This is just plain ridiculous.
Actually, the Florida Constitution was amended in the previous election to require a 60% pass threshold as opposed to a simple majority after we embarrassed ourselves with the “pregnant pigs” Amendment.
So the threshold was set before Amendment 2 was proposed. And it still passed.
Ping.
Surprise! Surprise! Queers going through the back door to get their desires met!
Is it not supposed to work like this? 1) Someone brings a suit and it is decided on fact. 2) The appellate court may then judge the application of law, but not determine fact. 3) Then, the supreme court may review and again judge the application of law, perhaps addressing conflicts between laws. Where is this now? I think step 1 hasn’t occurred.
As you may note, our term limits ain’t worked out so great either.
Har!
"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
There is no “question of law” this is a contrivance.
The original court decision was deeply flawed too. Not one person had been denied the right to marry; all they were denied was the ability to do something completely different from marriage and still call it marriage.
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.