Posted on 11/17/2008 12:54:25 PM PST by nickcarraway
Today is the day the California Supreme Court has asked state Attorney General Jerry Brown to have a reply filed to lawsuits that challenge Proposition 8. Prop 8 is the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages.
Brown's filing will not address the ballot measure's validity. It will instead focus on the question of whether the justices should accept the suits for review at all. It will also make a case whether the justices should suspend Prop. 8 while they consider the issue.
If the justices suspend the proposition, that means same-sex marriages could resume.
Legal experts say the fact that the justices wanted a response so quickly is a sign they are taking the cases seriously.
The city of San Francisco, along with two gay couples, filed the suits on Nov. 5.
Over the weekend, gay rights supporters waving rainbow colors marched, chanted and danced in cities coast to coast to protest the vote that banned gay marriage in California.
Crowds gathered near public buildings in cities large and small, including Boston, San Francisco, Chicago and Fargo, to vent their frustrations, celebrate gay relationships and renew calls for change. San Diego had the largest turnout in the state, with an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 demonstrators.
"Civil marriages are a civil right, and we're going to keep fighting until we get the rights we deserve as American citizens," said Karen Amico, one of several hundred protesters in Philadelphia, holding up a sign reading "Don't Spread H8".
Connecticut, which began same-sex weddings this past week, and Massachusetts are the only two states that allow gay marriage. The other 48 states do not, and 30 of them have taken the extra step of approving constitutional amendments. A few states allow civil unions or domestic partnerships that grant some rights of marriage.
These people are either repeating a lie or they actually believe it.
FOR THE LAST TIME....THERE ARE NO GROUP RIGHTS!
Amazing when The People speak it is only allowed to stand if the liberals agree otherwise off to court to fight something that was voted on. If Conservatives did the same there would be no end to the criticism.
What better way to remember Jerry Moonbeam Brown than hooked to the homosexual agenda.
You father would be so ashamed.
The fact that the justices wanted a response so quickly is a sign they are wanting to kill it asap..............
Groups or ahem people who file court challenges and run up bills after elections rather than before when the electorate has clearly spoken should have to pay a serious tax and a fine for wasting money for elections (even if they win in Court) and especially do so for bankrupt California.
IIRC Jerry Brown wants to run for Governor again. If he does I don’t see him winning if Prop #8 is overturned at his hand. He already changed the title of the Proposition in favor of the Homosexuals, but still the proposition won substantially.
What can be done should the California Supreme Court overturn the will of the people of California? Is it possible to recall, or impeach rather the lot of them?
Somehow we the people must regain control of the out of control.
Except for that well regulated militia thingee.... < /s>
That’s not a fair criticism of the No on 8 people. They sought to have the Supreme Court invalidate Proposition 8 before the vote on precisely the grounds that they are now asserting (revision instead of amendment) and the Supreme Court refused to rule.
OK...say the CA-Supremes say “no prop 8”....can the someone file a suit or appeal in the name of the People to a higher court and get this all the way to the SCOTUS?
Jerry Brown has a “date” with the Supreme Court?
Watch your language!
Democracy doesn’t mean diddly to these homosexual activists.
The only thing that matters is that the entire country stands up and cheers their lifestyle and calls it marriage. They will try by hook or by crook to get the American people to roll over and surrender to their intimidation.
Here’s praying the PEOPLE will stand resolute.
A single activist judge decided this alone. Neither the people of Connecticut nor its elected legislators voted for this.
only1percent wrote: “That’s not a fair criticism of the No on 8 people. They sought to have the Supreme Court invalidate Proposition 8 before the vote on precisely the grounds that they are now asserting (revision instead of amendment) and the Supreme Court refused to rule”
Well, I was taught when a court refuses to rule, that’s a ruling. Now, I have no clue on California law but they surely knew this was coming up for a vote so they needed to start sooner or if they thought they had US constitutional issues, why didn’t they go on the fed level. Lawsuits, court time as well as elections are expensive creatures and from what I can tell, California is hurting financially.
I guess the constitution is the constitution only when libs agree with it.
Is that George Orwell in the jodhpurs and grey tweed?
Somebody needs to seriously propose an amendment to abolish the California Supreme Court. That will remind the justices of their limits.
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.