State high court to rule Tuesday on Prop. 8

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 5/22/9 | Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

[SmithL]

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court will rule Tuesday on a challenge to Proposition 8, the ballot measure that reinstated California's ban on same-sex marriage.

. . .

Attorney General Jerry Brown, who ordinarily defends state laws in the courts, joined the opponents of Prop. 8 and argued that the voters lack the power to eliminate "inalienable rights."

Supporters of the measure argued that the voters have the right to amend their Constitution and are entitled to deference from the courts. Most of the justices appeared to agree at a hearing in March, and gay-rights advocates are already making tentative plans to return to the ballot in 2010 or 2012 if the court upholds Prop. 8.

At the same hearing, the justices' questions seemed to indicate that the court was likely to uphold the 18,000 marriages that were conducted between mid-June 2008, when their ruling took effect, and the passage of Prop. 8.

[SmithL]

Better story than the one in the Bee.

[Dilbert San Diego]

So we’ll see. Most likely they will split the difference. So whoever got married before election day last year will still be married no matter what.

Gear up for another vote on this. We will keep voting until the gay activists win. If they win a vote, they will then try to keep the traditional marriage side from wanting future votes.

Federal court lawsuits are inevitable. The federal gov’t doesn’t recognize these marriages. Mr. Sulu and Wanda Sykes and Ellen De Generes and all the rest are single under federal law.

[sickoflibs]

I was surprised to see this was not already resolved, saw it on Glen Beck

[americanophile]

"Attorney General Jerry Brown, who ordinarily defends state laws in the courts, joined the opponents of Prop. 8 and argued that the voters lack the power to eliminate "inalienable rights."

Savage's boy strikes again.

[Judith Anne]

Haven’t Californians voted down gay marriage three times already? This will (probably) be the third time the courts have thrown out the PEOPLE’S VOTE—the third time the CALIFORNIA COURTS HAVE DISENFRANCHISED CALIFORNIA CITIZENS.

Sorry to yell, this just gets under my skin.

*sheesh* Why do we bother having elections, when the courts can do all the social engineering they want without reference to voters?

[Redleg Duke]

The Kalifornicatia Supreme Court will bitch slap the voters for Prop 8 and for all the Props they voted down this week.

It's liberal payback time.

[Huskrrrr]

I predict a major win for Moon Beam. The hand car has now arrived in Hell.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”*sheesh* Why do we bother having elections, when the courts can do all the social engineering they want without reference to voters?”

I think it's worse than that. They liberal judges are saying that they can decide what the State constitution says at any time (without limits) and the public has no say in the constitution. At the risk of using Mark Levin Retoric, that is ‘Tyranny:’

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

To paraphrase “their” bumper sticker:

“I want my democracy NOW!”

They are for democracy until the people vote for something they don’t like. Then they are best friends with judicial tyrants.

[ExTexasRedhead]

Again, we the people doesn’t mean crap to the scum politicians.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Ugh!

How is the court going to handle the State's Bankruptcy?...I wonder...

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Wasn't prop 13 a voter initiated vote?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[kellynla]

As others have repeatedly stated...”why do we bother having elections”

[fwdude]

The discussions by the homo-nazis on the SFGate website are so maddening, it's tiresome just to read a few of them. What a bunch of brainwashed degenerates.