Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules
LA Times ^ | 6/28/13 | Maura Dolan

Posted on 06/28/2013 3:52:41 PM PDT by LonelyCon

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California.

The court lifted its stay on an injunction which ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8. With the court's action, counties can now begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

A spokesman for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had originally said it would takes the court at least 25 days to act after a Supreme Court ruling. Immediately afterward, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered his public health agency to advise the state's counties to "begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the 9th Circuit confirms the stay is lifted."

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: gay; homosexualagenda; marriage; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last
I am speechless.
1 posted on 06/28/2013 3:52:41 PM PDT by LonelyCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

Democrats: making the world safe for sodomy.


2 posted on 06/28/2013 3:55:04 PM PDT by MeganC (A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll never need one again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

Makes no sense. Their decision was vacated, and yet they get tot make the final decision?


3 posted on 06/28/2013 3:55:20 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

Gay “marriage” can pretend to continue, but that will not force decent people to pretend it means anything.


4 posted on 06/28/2013 3:55:22 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
this is a dark day for america

First same-sex marriage happens at 4:15pm in SF following lift of the stay of the injunction on Prop8. @KCBSNews --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 posted on 06/28/2013 3:55:54 PM PDT by drewh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

Lord, have mercy on us!


6 posted on 06/28/2013 3:56:05 PM PDT by Deo volente (God willing, America shall survive this Obamanation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

This decision was like George Zimmerman being put on trial, but denied any legal defense at all.


7 posted on 06/28/2013 3:57:00 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

Aside from the obvious moral degradation, the government has just nullified the will of the people.

We no longer have a say. Our lives are ruled by a star chamber


8 posted on 06/28/2013 3:57:49 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

It won’t matter still to me. I still will show my utter disgust in front of these faggots.


9 posted on 06/28/2013 3:59:20 PM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company after the election, & laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Makes no sense. Their decision was vacated, and yet they get tot make the final decision?

Because their decision was vacated, the stay pending appeal which they had ordered has to be dissolved as well. The only question was whether they were going to wait for the "mandate" (the Supreme Court's formal order to them to vacate their decision, which will come down in about 25 days), or act on their own.

10 posted on 06/28/2013 4:00:04 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
This is corruption of democracy to the extreme. So, the decision of over 7 million voters are being denied any defense whatsoever?!!
11 posted on 06/28/2013 4:02:52 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
Lemme get this straight.

The sovereign people of CA declared via their constitution, as is their right, that marriage = man + wife.

The decision of a local faggot federal judge, Vaugh Walker overruled the tens of millions of Californians who declared what all civilizations have known.

If so, Rush is right. A coup d’etat has occurred.

12 posted on 06/28/2013 4:03:05 PM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

Except they can’t, because homosexuals cannot marry each other. A homosexual ‘marriage’ is like a round square. It is logically incoherent.


13 posted on 06/28/2013 4:08:46 PM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

But Californians voted against this.
How can the state so called leaders undo what we have voted?

Also, I believe it is erroneous to use the term “gay/homosexual” marriage. God created marriage to be between man and woman. Let homosexuals continue to be known as “Un” civil unions).


14 posted on 06/28/2013 4:10:10 PM PDT by PrayAndVoteConservesInLibsOut (PRAYING FOR AMERICA EVERY DAY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

Regardless your views on gay issues, this means that our initiative process is meaningless if the state so desires.


15 posted on 06/28/2013 4:12:57 PM PDT by umgud (2A can't survive dem majorities)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

The sodomites from all the other sane states, just to make a point and to press the issue, will now go to KKKalifornia, get “married,” and return to their home states and then file lawsuits to force their state to recognize it. Bet me they won’t.


16 posted on 06/28/2013 4:14:54 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
Gay “marriage” can pretend to continue, but that will not force decent people to pretend it means anything.

If you own a business which employs homosexuals, you can bet your bank account that they will.

17 posted on 06/28/2013 4:16:39 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

Another excellent reason not to visit or to live in California. One of these days the whole state is going to sink in the ocean.


18 posted on 06/28/2013 4:17:11 PM PDT by Nemoque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I won’t bet against your premise, but that’s exactly how same sex marriage will be de facto legalized in all 50 states. Full faith and credit clause.....and frankly, I’m surprised no one’s done it already.


19 posted on 06/28/2013 4:17:29 PM PDT by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
I firmly believe that the utter depravity finally fully began to wash over this country when it "elected" this abominable reprobate and his God-booing Party into office again last November. That was when the cup of iniquity became full and began running over, and God removed his hand completely from any suppression of wickedness. The delusion appears to be full, now.

The downward spin is going to be unbelievable now. Most here have no idea.

20 posted on 06/28/2013 4:20:13 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
I firmly believe that the utter depravity finally fully began to wash over this country when it "elected" this abominable reprobate and his God-booing Party into office again last November. That was when the cup of iniquity became full and began running over, and God removed his hand completely from any suppression of wickedness. The delusion appears to be full, now.

The downward spin is going to be unbelievable now. Most here have no idea.

21 posted on 06/28/2013 4:20:14 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

for purposes of state income taxes, do these faux gay marriages include paying income taxes on their joint incomes?....


22 posted on 06/28/2013 4:20:32 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
Sodom and Gomorrha
23 posted on 06/28/2013 4:21:14 PM PDT by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Twice the people of California voted and twice they voted for no homosexual “marriages” in the state. It costs millions dollars to get it on the ballot, but it got on the ballot and people with common sense prevailed. Their vote meant absolutely nothing. A HOMOSEXUAL judge stepped in and ruled THEIR VOTE unconstitutional. The sorry ass, worthless ass US Supreme Court said the homosexual judge was the judge and jury for California and the people of California can go straight to hell. It makes no difference what the majority of people voted for, the US Supreme Court sides with A HOMOSEXUAL judge to disenfranchise their vote. Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. We are no better than a two-bit banana republic controlled by a one-party system dictator. Obamagabe says shyt and the US Supreme Court says what color.


24 posted on 06/28/2013 4:23:32 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cherry

They can file jointly now, so I’d say ‘yes’.


25 posted on 06/28/2013 4:24:01 PM PDT by AnAmericanAbroad (It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
If you own a business which employs homosexuals, you can bet your bank account that they will.

I owned a business that employed a total of three homosexuals that I knew of:

One I fired for wasting work time on non-work activities, copying fliers for a gross "party" on my copier and taking several hours to do it when his group was facing a deadline, although I waited two weeks and told him I was cutting back in his area of expertise.

One moved on after a year - she was just working for me to get the training in professional statistical work.

One I set up in business on his own when I shut down my business - he was a good, decent, honest worker who kept his personal and professional lives completely separate.

If any had demanded special accommodations, I would have given in immediately to avoid lawsuits, and then fired them a few weeks or perhaps months later for unrelated reasons.

26 posted on 06/28/2013 4:26:52 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1
If any had demanded special accommodations, I would have given in immediately to avoid lawsuits, and then fired them a few weeks or perhaps months later for unrelated reasons.

You do know that any wrongful termination lawsuit they would have filed against you would have prevailed, right?

Homos can do no wrong.

27 posted on 06/28/2013 4:28:46 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
The sorry ass, worthless ass US Supreme Court

What really gets me, what I'm just utterly betrayed by, is that Scalia - SCALIA !!! - voted for this. What ever has the world come to?
28 posted on 06/28/2013 4:28:56 PM PDT by LonelyCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: max americana

they can pretend as much as they want but if I ever see them then they will get nothing but disgust from me and my family and for the record I;ve already done that a few times and everyone of them are nothing but talking point and drama queens.
They want to be proud of sticking up into feces or hating men but dating women who pretend to be men then they might not admit they have mental issues but to millions and most of the country they are nothing but mental midgets who can’t get past talking points and why the communists promoted homosexuality in the 60’s


29 posted on 06/28/2013 4:31:14 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

The local media here is enjoying every minute of this..they can’t contain their glee..and whenever they show anything to do with gay marriage all they show nonstop are men kissing other men and women kissing other women..they are throwing it in our faces on purpose its disgusting


30 posted on 06/28/2013 4:31:31 PM PDT by Sarah Barracuda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Feel like the jimmy carter years again. Jerry Brown as CA Governor, homosexuality being pushed for very hard and our gov’t spitting in Israel’s face. And our dear leader saying we need to have price control which translates to gov’t mandated inflation. Be nice to have a gentleman named Ronald Reagan run for office like before !


31 posted on 06/28/2013 4:31:51 PM PDT by CORedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

maybe you could read what Scalia wrote ...


32 posted on 06/28/2013 4:31:55 PM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (we're the Beatniks now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
So, a defendant is now defenseless, and no one can do anything about it?

Do we now have a Fuehrer?

33 posted on 06/28/2013 4:33:32 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

He was right on in the DOMA case, for sure. But why did he agree that the proponents of Prop 8 have no standing in that case? It allows the governor to override the will of the people by simply refusing to defend the initiative passed by a majority of Californians. As a Californian, I feel betrayed. Who will defend my vote?


34 posted on 06/28/2013 4:35:23 PM PDT by LonelyCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

The issue of voters making changes in the state’s Constitution has been going on for awhile.

When the left wins the vote, then the change is locked in stone and is never to be challenged.

However, when conservatives vote a change, it is either ignored or taken to court where a friendly judge rules against it.

The left think they have won. I believe this is an illusion. This nation (actually it may be the entire world) is in a pressure cooker. The left has been demonizing and making any opinion that does not conform to theirs to shut down and in some cases illegal.

If there is no way for those with difference of opinion to peacefully and safely express themselves, there will be an explosion.

I no longer if this will occur, I only wonder when and under what circumstances it will occur.


35 posted on 06/28/2013 4:36:03 PM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (California does not have a money problem, it has a spending problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

millions of Americans in CA voted to have their constitution changed because these homosexuals were pushing their sickness onto others.

Twice people voted, millions voted, million upon million spent, the left knew this and fought the amendment.

THEY LOST\\\\\

\but no they went judge shopping , found a homosexual judge who had no place to rule as it was a conflict of interest who benefits from his own decision and he now said ot the millions who spent money and worked on this and voted that you don’t exist, I want to have my sham marriage.

If marriage is what they wanted then why do they not all move to MA, o yea this is not about marriage and it certainly is not equal rights or equality as they keep shouting as they are against polygamy.

F-IN feces hypocrites


36 posted on 06/28/2013 4:36:07 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

Divorce lawyers all across the country are celebrating with caviar and Champagne. ;-)


37 posted on 06/28/2013 4:39:18 PM PDT by doc1019 (There is absolutely no difference between pro-choice and pro-abortion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
You do know that any wrongful termination lawsuit they would have filed against you would have prevailed, right? Homos can do no wrong.

Actually, they wouldn't. I learned early on to make sure that hiring and firing decisions were completely opaque, never an explanation beyond cutting back in that area, and that firings were separated by enough time from any event that might be interpreted as a trigger. I was in a seasonal industry, where cutbacks would not be seen as unusual. Every primary or general election was an appropriate time to get rid of people, as were the ends of other contract periods and potential contracts that fell through. In general, firing any "protected" individual is a risk, but that just means an employer has to be extra careful.

38 posted on 06/28/2013 4:39:43 PM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kidd
California has a say if they vote in the right people who will hold those accountable
who ignore the will of the people. But I doubt they will, highly doubt.

Nobody is holding Government accountable anymore!! NOBODY!

39 posted on 06/28/2013 4:42:36 PM PDT by MaxMax (If you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon

This ruling opens up a pandora’s box. Can the governor and AG just decide not to enforce initiatives or constitutional amendments passed by the voters?

Gay activists had two election cycles to put a repeal back on the ballot before the people — They chose not to do this so they could take it to federal court along with DOMA.

This ship has sailed.


40 posted on 06/28/2013 4:43:46 PM PDT by CountryClassSF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The Ninth Circuit was ordered by SCOTUS to lift the stay. They didn’t “make the final decision.” The stay the Ninth Circuit issued is a separate legal action from the case they wrongly accepted and then decided.


41 posted on 06/28/2013 5:00:51 PM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
Scalia wrote the dissenting opinion.
42 posted on 06/28/2013 5:04:05 PM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The headline a bit misleading. They just had to lift their stay after the SCOTUS ruling. It’s just a procedural technicality is all.


43 posted on 06/28/2013 5:08:30 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

You are confusing the two cases. He wrote in the dissent in the DOMA case - that was the federal case. He sided with the majority in the California case - Prop 8 - that allowed gay Judge Walker’s ruling overturning the will of the people to go into effect.


44 posted on 06/28/2013 5:09:51 PM PDT by LonelyCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

So Scalia really is a turncoat. And here I though he was protecting the marriage amendment from Kennedy.


45 posted on 06/28/2013 5:10:38 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Pretty much.

And I am outraged by the initial Dist Ct. decision. I like the comment here of a “round square”

But having said that, I think the Prop system should be abolished. I hate it. It is mob rule by a bunch of low information voters who decide based the most effective commercial. Bad enough they do that for their Representatives but they should not be permitted to do that for laws.


46 posted on 06/28/2013 5:11:07 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: manc

I already spit on front of a pair of these clowns holding hands.


47 posted on 06/28/2013 5:23:15 PM PDT by max americana (fired liberals in our company after the election, & laughed while they cried (true story))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon
Email from Prop 8's General Counsel to supporters:

We just received word that the Ninth Circuit, without waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision to become final and depriving us of our right to ask for reconsideration, has rushed forward to order same-sex marriage licenses.

This outrageous act of judicial tyranny tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption.

Homosexual marriage is not happening because the people changed their mind. It isn’t happening because the appellate courts declared a new constitutional right. It’s happening because enemies of the people have abused their power to manipulate the system and render the people voiceless.

The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed.

It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California.

-- Andy Pugno
Prop 8 General Counsel

So, in essence, the defense attorney was gagged and dragged from the courtroom, leaving the defendant defenseless.

48 posted on 06/28/2013 5:40:10 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PrayAndVoteConservesInLibsOut
How can the state so called leaders undo what we have voted?

The same way they did with Proposition 187. The will of the people means nothing anymore.

49 posted on 06/28/2013 5:46:54 PM PDT by Nea Wood (When life gets too hard to stand, kneel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LonelyCon; All
It's been awhile since I reviewed Prop. 8 California court decisions. But if I remember correctly, and corrections are welcome, California judges applied the equal protections clause in the California constitution to protect gay marriage. And if this is the case then the problem with doing so is the following.

The equal protections clause in the California constitution is expressly based on the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS (See SEC. 7. (a))

However, there is glaring evidence in the federal Constitution that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1, had never intended for the equal protections clause to be applied the way that pro-gay California judges have applied it to Prop. 8.

More specifically, if the equal protections clauses of the federal and California state constitutions were intended to be understood the way that California judges have applied it to Prop. 8 then there would have been no need for the states to ratify the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments to the Constitution, these amendments establishing voting protections based on specific criteria.

In fact, noting that the 19th Amendment was ratified to prohibit federal and state governments from prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex, the Supreme Court having previously decided in the case of Minor v. Happersett that the states could prohibit citizens from voting on the basis of sex regardless of 14A's equal protections clause, legal majority California voters similarly prohibited certain kinds of marriage on the basis of sex when they approved Prop. 8.

So where the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of 14A versus the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments is concerned, what equal protections actually means is the following imo. Simply put, states can make laws which discriminate on the basis of criteria which is not expressly protected by the Constitution, as long as such laws are applied equally to everybody affected by an unprotected criterion.

Again, pro-gay activist California judges inappropriately based their application of the equal protections clauses in both federal and state constitutions on PC interpretations of these clauses imo.

50 posted on 06/28/2013 6:00:19 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson