CALIFORNIA: State high court refuses to remove same-sex marriage ban from ballot

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 87/16/8 | Bob Egelko

[SmithL]

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court refused today to remove a proposed ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot.

The initiative, Proposition 8, is a state constitutional amendment that would overturn the court's May 15 ruling allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry in California.

Gay-rights advocates sued June 19 to block a vote on Prop. 8, arguing that the measure would destroy fundamental rights that can't legally be abolished by an initiative.

[originalbuckeye]

I recently read a quote from a Gay Rights advocate where she postulated ‘Respect for the GLBT way of life is being taught in Kindergarten. In 20 years this will be a complete non-issue’. You're right. All the little kids will be indoctrinated by then and the GLBT/MSM/Hollyweird agenda will be accepted as completely normal. Shame.

[TheDon]

Count me in. Among those SS advocates, who we will be telling to pound sand, are the CSC justices who created this extra-constitutional legislation.

Some of them are coming up for re-election in a couple years. They will get the “Rose Bird” treatment.

[TheDon]

Yet another reason to pull your kids out of gov’t schools.

[MississippiMan]

I expect the AFA to get involved. If they don’t, some Californians should urge them to.

MM

[tflabo]

The state Supreme Court refused today to remove a proposed ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot.

The black robed tyrants prefer to thwart the will of the voters after the election like good Stalinists would do! Its their M.O.

[SierraWasp]

Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaa!!! Best, most funniest, even more funnier reply/comment than any other I’ve seen for quite awhile on here!!!

[cookcounty]

"Well, since homos can only recruit, not breed,....

And yet they amazingly manage to keep passing that special gene along from generation to generation.

[Loud Mime]

The number of conservatives in California amazes me; but they have to whisper they are.

Time to get some bumper stickers!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

The court rarely takes up legal challenges to a ballot measure before an election, and could consider the same issue in another lawsuit if the measure passes.

Unfortunately this ruling does not establish a precedent and expect another challenge if Prop 8 passes. The court for now declined to address the substance, likely because before Prop 8 passes the parties involved lacked standing to bring a lawsuit, since they had not yet been harmed.

[Secret Agent Man]

They (including Schwartzzzzzz) just say it’s proof of global warming and inaction of the Bush Admin.

Couldn’t be because they keep trying to legalize perversion (much less keep printing it, filming it, subsidizing it, .....) in good ol’ Cali.

[Boagenes]

I hope the sodomites are ready, because the people are coming to the ballot box on November 9th and they are going to have the final say. And all their perverse, faux marriages will be remembered as nothing but a social hiccup, a cultural aberration - same as their lifestyle.

[Publius6961]

OMG!

Homophobic justices!

[Publius6961]

Some of them are coming up for re-election in a couple years. They will get the “Rose Bird” treatment.

Most of us tend to forget that.
Time to make some "Remember Rose Bird" bumper stickers.

: )

[Publius6961]

Sorry, SW...
Wit is lost on the GLBT community. No sense of humor.

[SunStar]

Uh oh, can the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturn this, or is it safe as is?

Nope. This a state-only issue. The courts state that laws banning gay "marriage" are unconstitutional, so this ballot initiative amends the state constitution.

[goldstategop]

They lost one today. They don't know they can't win on the merits of the issue, folks, so if the California Supremes couldn't save their bacon, they're going to have to lie and scare Californians. The one thing the same sex marriage can't do is talk about how wonderful and life changing redefining the traditional definition of marriage is. They're toast at the ballot box, folks and they know it.

"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

[CedarDave]

I’m lost on this. If the state supreme court already ruled that gay marriage was legal (was it in response to a previous citizen initiative??) how will the current initiative result in a different result if passed?? When challenged by the homosexual community, the result before the court is likely to be the same (i.e. gay marriage legal), isn’t it??

[goldstategop]

They can't change a state constitutional amendment. No after the election, the Gay Lobby is going to the federal courts and try to have it tossed out on equal protection grounds. They're going to let it pass and then they're going to try to get the Nine Circus to nullify the will of the people again... for 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

[goldstategop]

A state supreme court cannot overrule the state constitution. The decision this spring would simply be reversed in that Prop. 22's language would be codified in the state constitution. The Gay Lobby would have to raise a federal constitutional question here to get that struck down.

"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

[SunStar]

If the state supreme court already ruled that gay marriage was legal (was it in response to a previous citizen initiative??)

They did not rule that gay "marriage" was legal! They ruled that banning it was unconstitutional. So this is an attempt to update the constitution itself so that it will be constitutional.