State Supreme Court rejoins Prop. 8 battle

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 11/20/8 | Bob Egelko

[SmithL]

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars Wednesday, agreeing to decide the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed in California.

. . .

Kennard's vote a bad sign?

While both sides cheered the court's decision to take up the cases, Kennard's lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.

Kennard is the court's longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples' rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.

"It's always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn't warrant review," said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.

For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, "I would not think it would be encouraging," said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court.

[SmithL]

Dennis Herrera, San Francisco's city attorney, joins Santa Clara City Councilwoman Ann Ravel in a news conference in Herrera's office.

[catbertz]

Wankers

[goldstategop]

The Left's intolerance and lack of grace may get them everything they didn't want than if they had respected the will of the people and left Prop. 8 well enough alone. What comes around goes around.

"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

[skeeter]

BIG freakin mistake. This will only prolong the protest & encourage the queers.

If the court overturns the will of the people the implications will be far reaching and - not good.

[rellimpank]

-—remember Rose Bird and what happened to her?

[A CA Guy]

First, if judges weren’t causing trouble by overruling the people, there would have been no marriages to begin with.
#2 If they turn 8 down, there are going to be some recall of judges.

[OneWingedShark]

I’m just waiting for this to spark off Civ War 2...

[IrishMike]

Judges are not there to serve as an amplifying mouthpiece for the angry mob i.e. all that “will of the people crap”.

At least that’s how liberals see the United States

[Mojave]

-—remember Rose Bird and what happened to her?

They're bolder now. They'll just overturn the recall election.

[Signalman]

If the court overturns the will of the people the implications will be far reaching and - not good.

And of course, most of us who voted for Prop 8 are, unlike the other side, not going to riot in the streets and burn automobiles when we don't get our way, so we'll just sit back and take it. But there will come a day, I don't know when, when the Conservatives in this country will have had enough, and then they will utilize their full 2nd Amendment rights. It will take a lot for that to happen, but at some point the Obama administration and its Marxist allies will overreach, and the "silent majority" will act.

[HighlyOpinionated]

But there will come a day, I don't know when, when the Conservatives in this country will have had enough, and then they will utilize their full 2nd Amendment rights. It will take a lot for that to happen, but at some point the Obama administration and its Marxist allies will overreach, and the "silent majority" will act.

You think so?

I figure that if conservatives band together NOW and get to work in their home States, the 2010 Congress will look very Conservative, Traditional and Constitutional because Conservatives (us)(or we) worked hard to make it so.

One reason it will not come to 2nd Amendment Rights is Because Of 2nd Amendment Rights. As long as we hold onto our guns and ammo, we cannot be treated as sheeple.

Now a word about READING The Federalist Papers. There is so much information to quote from when writing any politician . . . if you quote from The Federalist Papers, the Congresscritter (or President/ViceP) can reply with, what? The Anti-Federalist Papers? Read them too.
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

[reagandemocrat]

The Berkeley professor misreads Justice Kennard—

She would deny the petitions WITHOUT PREJUDICE to refiling them to include the issue ‘gay’ marriages already performed.

[manc]

here’s a thought and I would not lose sleep over.

the north east joins Quebec, all liberals and homo’s now have to move there.
They then have their liberal utopia and leave the majority of this country alone.

I give them 5 years before they come begging back to join us as they are now over run with illegals child molesters and radical lefty loon .

course in that deal anyone moving south had better not bring their Dem voting with them.

This is something I have never understood.
They move down here to escape high tax;’s high costs, bad roads, etc and yet they come here and still vote as they did back up there thus making their new state look like the one they escaped.

Can’t Dem’s just got a small inch of a brain and realise at just how much they screw this country up.

My mother in law, comes and lives in MA.
She is against abortion, illegals, homo’s , contraception for young school girls without the parent knowing, high tax’s

ah but she votes for anything for a D at the end of the name.

AARRGGHHH

[fwdude]

Approved by 52 percent of voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of marriage - a union of a man and a woman - that the court had overturned May 15.

Whatever else the article says, this quote by the Chronicle is just unbelievable. Truth - from a liberal paper for a change. Is this really from SF?

[OneWingedShark]

>ah but she votes for anything for a D at the end of the name.

...Then we need a Genuine conservative republican named Blind to run. ;)

[Amendment10]

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars Wednesday, agreeing to decide the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed in California.

I'm not an expert on Calif. constitution so corrections welcome.

Regarding California's so-called right for gays to wed, there was never such a right to be repealed in the first place, a right expressly protected by California's constitution. The so-called right to gay marriage referenced in the OP was actually created by judicial fiat in blatant defiance of majority will.