Posted on 11/10/2008 10:07:54 PM PST by goldstategop
That said, I am entirely convinced that same-sex marriage will again be legalized in California, the 52 percent vote notwithstanding. Just as the courts overrode the will of the majority in ordering desegregation of public schools and public accommodations, and just as the courts ignored the demands of the electorate by opening voting to people of color and the right to marry to mixed-race couples, so, too, will the courts, in defiance of the majority, however slim, reopen the doors of marriage to the gay community. The Sturm und Drang with which society greeted these courageous and controversial court rulings was ultimately replaced by acceptance. I predict that same-sex marriage will follow the same path. After all, 18,000 couples already have wed and the world has not stopped turning. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court boldly bestowed upon gay couples the right to marry. I have no doubt that these brave justices will do it again.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.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
If they manage to overturn a Constitutional amendment, watch out. California will shake as it has never shaken before. The wrong thoughts and actions of man bring bad karma (also known as the wrath of God).
Voters have become irrelevant in this country.
Its rule by autocracy and the damn voters just keep getting in the way. What is wrong with these people? Don’t they understand that its all about us, the BABY BOOM??? /s/
They will come up with some weasel way of thwarting the will of the people. A judge is just a lawyer with too much power.
I’d bet large amounts of money they are going to overturn it. I don’t see how they can do otherwise given they have ruled it (in CA) a fundamental right.
If the courts overturn it, the judges should be removed and it should be placed on the ballot again.
“On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court boldly bestowed upon gay couples the right to marry. I have no doubt that these brave justices will do it again.”
If I recall correctly, those “brave justices” bestowed the right to marry based on a lack of language in the California Constitution limiting marriage to opposite sex partners so the same case reasoning would not apply in these new cases. Their main hope is to argue the change to the Constitution was a revision and not just an amendment and I believe the court already ruled on that before the election. The next main hope is to argue that marriage is a civil right which cannot be limited to opposite sex partners and I haven’t seen a case directly stating that marriage is a civil right. It may well be that the court will overrule the California electorate—heaven knows, it has happened several times before this, but it also may be possible that the narrow majority on the California Supreme Court that okayed same-sex marriage on a 4-3 vote may not hold for a subsequent case.
Prior behavior proved he could behave heterosexually.
Current behvaior proves he is behaving homosexually.
Therefore, he is doing something he had the ability not to do, but claims he didn't chose to do so. Huh?
I guess it depends on how you choose to define "choose".
The legacy of Clinton lives on.
The silliness of a marriage license being seen as a fundamental civil right. A license with the word “marriage” on it instead of “civil union.” That’s a word the pro-homosexual-marriage crowd seeks desperately for some reason.
No word yet on whether business licenses, cosmetology licenses, and drivers licenses are human rights 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
Actually though, state constitutions are under the federal constitution. The federal 9th Circus court, I’m willing to bet will be more than happy to declare the California Constitution federally unconstitutional....thereby pushing this up to the Supreme Court (no doubt after Obama has made his appointments).
Are State Supreme Court judges sworn in to uphold the Constitution of that state? This is now part of the State’s Constitution it would appear they must uphold the new law. WTH, you can’t just make it up as you go along folks, otherwise it’s anarchy.
It’s ironic that 52% elected Obama and that is a “Mandate” but when 52% of Californians say no to Gay Marriage, well that’s just a slight win.
"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
Since when do the liberals/communists have any respect for the rule of law? It applies only to those they oppose, not them.
"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
Stalin said, “Those who vote determine nothing. Those who count the votes determine everything.”
We now add, “And if the counting is inadequate, then those who overturn the voting and the counting, are the final determinant.”
They will have to violate one of the judicial leftist's sacred cows--stare decisis, and overturn the 1878 polygamy decision U.S. v. Reynolds, which decided the federal government has a right to regulate what constitutes marriage in the U.S. This will, or should, also legalize polygamy. Beastiality and pedophilia can't be far behind.
The irony of this situation is not lost on me. Here we have the rabid homo's protesting against Mormons, and if the homos are successful, they will legitimize the past practice of the very group they despise. Now, about those reparation payments...
"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
Oddly enough I’m not convinced that the court will go this far. They only had a 4-3 majority earlier this year and that was largely based on the supposition that Prop 22 had lost majority support. We shall see but they might be worried that this is a bridge too far. After all, this is a constitutional amendment as opposed to a ballot initiative.
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.