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

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

[goldstategop]

Not necessarily. The Gay Lobby is screwed and they'll need to make it a federal issue. As I said, a state supreme court can't overrule the state's highest law, which the state constitution. Its binding on all the branches of government. They may be able to decide if the amendment was ineligible for the ballot in the first place but if it passes by a substantial margin, it will take more than a legal technicality for the California Supremes to throw it out. Today's decision is revealing in that their decision to invalidate Prop. 22 was all about politics and not the principle of fundamental constitutional rights. If those rights are absolute, them they should have indeed removed Prop. 8 from the ballot today. They're the seven hypocrites of California.

"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]

Well if banning it is constitutional then we can be thankful they made such a stupid, loopy decision this spring. Its as though they wanted to let voters make the decision they were too politically gutless to make themselves.

"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

[Repeal 16-17]

The CSC probably knew that if it prohibited the People from voting on this, the issue would have gotten a whole uglier. The court knew it could only go so far.

[Repeal 16-17]

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.

After that, King Tony (a.k.a., Justice Kennedy) will decide.

[Almondjoy]

This whole thing is so ridiculous and I wish someone in the media would call it what it is.

My understand is that in California homosexuals do have all the rights of married individuals. The only thing the Supreme Court basically said was that it wouldn’t allow seperate but equal... essentially you can’t have civil unions and marriage.

Now if I called green let’s say red people would have a fit and be confused. Why is that a union between someone other than a man and a woman gets to be called marriage.

It’s because marriage is the enemy.. it doesn’t matter how many rights they get.. tey want to move to a society that doesn’t have any committment to anything.

Sadly we have been moving in that direction a long time regardless of homosexual marriage... ie divorce rate of 50+%.

Luckily there are some of us that are trying to be an example to others and I guess that’s all we have to hang onto in times like these.

[DoughtyOne]

Now that was funny. LOL

[fwdude]

I'm less optimistic and predict more like 55/45 passage. There is a lot of homo-money and effort being invested to defeat this. That, along with some good ol’ democratic election fraud.

[fwdude]

“harm” in the liberal playbook means getting your feelings hurt. I think the court might agree.

[fwdude]

all their perverse, faux marriages will be remembered as nothing but a social hiccup, a cultural aberration

Yeah, kind of like Polio before Salk. I can't wait for the tantrums to begin.

[only1percent]

While it was purely a matter for the State Supreme Court to find a right to gay marriage in the state Constitution, it is not necessarily a purely state matter as to whether or not that right, once found, can be removed.

In Roemer vs. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas the U.S. Supreme Court held, in different contexts, that political efforts targeting gays and lesbians are inherently suspect. If the amendment passes in November, a (Federal) extension of Roemer and Lawrence to nullify its passage will doubtless be one of the strategies undertaken by the pro-gay-marriage side.

[tlb]

Just a reminder, even if the Initiative passes and gay marriage is blocked in California, those marriages occurring before the vote will remain legal. An ex post facto law won’t affect the prior legal marriages.

Secondly, Massachusetts is moving to enable out-of-staters to marry. A legal marriage performed there must ultimately be recognized anywhere else under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution.

[fwdude]

Wrong (twice).

[Raineygoodyear]

Well as a Californian we thought they might have gotten the message!

Oh well..... all’s well for now in San Diego!
:)

[DoughtyOne]

Good! Keep your rubber umbrella handy...

[WalterSkinner]