Skip to comments.
Prop. 8 Gay Marriage Ban Goes To Supreme Court (Hearing Next Year. Prop. 8 Remains In Effect Alert)
Los Angeles Times ^
| 11/19/2008
| Maura Dolan
Posted on 11/19/2008 2:56:03 PM PST by goldstategop
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 next last
The California Supreme Court agreed to accept the challenges to Proposition 8 today for review and ordered a hearing next year. Prop. 8 remains in effect and was NOT stayed by the Court.
"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
To: goldstategop
2
posted on
11/19/2008 2:59:19 PM PST
by
scripter
("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
To: goldstategop
How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Isn’t the the whole point of these plebescites?
3
posted on
11/19/2008 3:00:34 PM PST
by
B-Chan
(Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
To: goldstategop
a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown Did I read that right? Must be running for gov or something.
4
posted on
11/19/2008 3:01:45 PM PST
by
Lx
To: goldstategop
Pictured en banc in the Supreme Court Courtroom in Sacramento are the courts seven justices, from left to right: Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.
Source
5
posted on
11/19/2008 3:02:14 PM PST
by
Loud Mime
(Good is Evil and Evil is now good. The alarm has rung.)
To: B-Chan
The argument is, whether this is a constitutional amendment (that can be voted on solely by the people) or a revision (that requires a vote by 2/3rd of the California legislature).
Now, given that they didn’t stay the decision gives us some hope. After all, if they had stayed the decision, that would seem to indicate that they automatically agreed to Prop 8 opponents. Now, they have till March 8th to bitch and moan about not getting married.
6
posted on
11/19/2008 3:03:26 PM PST
by
Simmy2.5
Comment #7 Removed by Moderator
To: goldstategop
If the Prop 8 opponents lose this round, will it then go to the 9th Circus Court - er, Circuit Court?
8
posted on
11/19/2008 3:05:59 PM PST
by
COBOL2Java
(Obama: Satan's Counterfeit Christ)
To: goldstategop
Ok Carlos Moreno is to be targeted no mater the outcome.
9
posted on
11/19/2008 3:06:51 PM PST
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Morgana
Yes, the homo (haters) will not stop until the “normals” are as upset & angry & as hateful as they are....
10
posted on
11/19/2008 3:08:24 PM PST
by
PEACE ENFORCER
(One Needs to Have the Capability of Using Deadly Force at Any Moment.....:))
To: COBOL2Java
I’m not a lawyer, but this is a state issue. The 9th Circus is a federal court, so no, I don’t believe so.
11
posted on
11/19/2008 3:13:16 PM PST
by
Dan Nunn
To: goldstategop
Okay let see how they rule if not I am wholeheartly and for recall
12
posted on
11/19/2008 3:16:25 PM PST
by
SevenofNine
("We are Freepers, all your media belong to us, resistence is futile")
To: Simmy2.5
The argument is, whether this is a constitutional amendment (that can be voted on solely by the people) or a revision (that requires a vote by 2/3rd of the California legislature).I would think that the People of California trump the Supreme Court of California so long as what they passed doesn't violate the US Constitution.
To: goldstategop
If not good news, at least “okay” news bookmark.
14
posted on
11/19/2008 3:26:13 PM PST
by
little jeremiah
(Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
To: goldstategop
They put this off until March, four months for everyone to cool down, or heat up.
15
posted on
11/19/2008 3:30:45 PM PST
by
BlueStateBlues
(Blue State for business, Red State at heart..)
To: COBOL2Java
If its upheld, then same sex marriage is banned in California. The opponents would have to go to the voters to try to get it overturned.
"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
16
posted on
11/19/2008 3:31:51 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: rustbucket
Since when did the men in black robes care about the people?
Of course, there is an issue here. If this was a constitutional revision, shouldn’t this have been judged on BEFORE the election took place?
In fact, they did decide on it before the election when the ACLU wanted the proposition off the ballot anyways (using the same argument that it is a revision and not an amendment), the court rejected that argument and allowed it on the ballot anyways (but still allowed gay marriages to continue, and, left open a possible court challenge later if it passed).
Apparently they were hoping it would fail. Which it didn’t.
17
posted on
11/19/2008 3:36:17 PM PST
by
Simmy2.5
To: Simmy2.5
To: Simmy2.5
Yep. And if it really was a revision, they should have followed the logic of the ACLU's argument last summer and ordered Prop. 8 taken off the ballot for that reason. The Court can't argue now that it was a revision, for by their turning down that ACLU argument then, they implicitly accepted it was an amendment. I don't see any way they can overturn it now.
"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
19
posted on
11/19/2008 3:43:44 PM PST
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
Looks as though the black robed dictators have decided that they could care less what the people say and what the Constitution says and will make the the law on their own. Which is a direct violation of the Supreme Law of the nation.
20
posted on
11/19/2008 3:52:13 PM PST
by
YOUGOTIT
(The Greatest Threat to our Security is the Royal 100 Club)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-58 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson