Posted on 11/19/2008 2:56:03 PM PST by goldstategop
he California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling.
Meeting in closed session, the state high court asked litigants on both sides for more written arguments and scheduled a hearing for next March. The court also signaled its intention to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages, asking litigants to argue that question.
Today's decision to review the lawsuits against Proposition 8 did not reveal how the court was leaning. The court could have dismissed the suits, but both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 sought review to settle legal questions on a matter of statewide importance.
Some legal challengers also sought an order that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry until the cases were resolved, a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 supporters. Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno voted in the private conference to grant such a stay.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The homosexual mafia is relentless.
The Prop 8 opponents might try to go through the Federal courts (they'd have to go through a lower level court first, before being able to appeal to the 9th), but they'd face an impossible task.
The California Supreme Court has the final say on how to interpret California's laws. It becomes a Federal matter only if there are issues that are in conflict with Federal law or the US Constitution. For example, if there were a provision based on race discrimination that was upheld by the CA Supreme Court, that would raise Federal issues under the 14th Amendment. If the provision in question were based on gender, it would be trickier, since we don't have a Federal ERA, but there are Federal laws that make gender a protected class. There is no decision that makes homosexuality a protected class, just Lawrence v. Texas, which merely prohibits a state from sanctioning private behavior.
Expect the Prop 8 opponents to try based on that case, but expect that even the 9th will have nothing to hang a decision to void Prop 8 with. And if they do, even Tony Kennedy will slap them down for it.
Great, so now the pro-gay media will have the oppurtunity to further silence the prop supporters and fabricate a “wave of support” for gay marriage. *sigh*
Orwell was right.
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).So then the question becomes: Since the Cali SC already decided against the legal challenges before the election, why is the issue going to trial again? As you said, perhaps they were simply hoping it would fail. But this second trial seems very similar to double jeopardy.
Good point.
By creating ‘gay’ marriage last May against the will of Californians, the Supremes have a monster conflict of interest, and should recuse themselves here...
send the issue the the U.S. Supreme Court..and let Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas et al handle this.
RD
You know the Bible says God hates the sin and not the sinner. I don’t like their lifestyle but not all are disease ridden. I unfortunately have a cousin who lives next door tha claims to be gay. I pray everyday for her to be turned from this awful decision she has made but I still love her as a family member. It’s hard to be objective when I hate the life she lives but not her. I, for one, don’t call them gay, homosexual or lesbian bur I do call them a name from the Bible which seems to infuriate those that hear it around here. I call them sodomites and it really ticks them off. I live outside of Ashevile,NC and they have moved here and taken over the town so much that I hate to take my boys to town to have them exposed to men kissing men and women groping each other. We need to pray more than ever for our nation and the tolerance it has for these people because the Lord is returning very soon and they need Him now more than ever.
IOW... they can't really say "we overturn the amendment", but they think they can say "you didn't actually amend it". A federal court could (at least in theory) say "that conflicts with the federal constitution and cannot be enforced" (just as if a state constitution banned abortion... it would still be in the constitution, but would be held invalid).
That's worked before, but looks set to fail here. One of the supporters of gay "marriage" on the court wasn't even willing to review the challenge... she only wanted to decide whether existing "marriages" were invalid given the amendment.
An interesting factor in here is that Justice Kennard who was one of the 4 who supported gay marriages wanted to reject the hearing altogether. Sounds to me as if this one might not go the way of the fruits.
She wanted to reject the hearing, without prejudice to filing another petition that would include ‘gay marriages’ performed after the Court’s May decision.
The engineer is about to be hoisted by his own petard.
I'm no legal scholar but doesn't the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws? If that's true then there's no was you can invalidate,within the state of California,"marriages" that occurred between the time when they were declared legal by the CA Supreme Court and the day that Prop 8 passed.
If said court believed that a right granted by the US Constitution was violated by Prop 8 then it could claim jurisdiction.You just *know* that if the pervs lose the case in the California courts they're gonna try to take it Federal.And they'd probably win the first round given that it's the 9th Circus.and depending on how many judges Hussein gets to put on the SCOTUS...and when....the pervs just might pull this off.
Is voting a civil right?
Did you know that if you are a conservative in California your vote doesn’t count? The decision will go back to the(California) supreme court where it will be overruled by the grim reapers.
Really. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I am not as sure as you are, that they won’t say that the process was flawed. They will most certainly throw it out. They already ruled that same sex marriage HAD to be allowed.
Soon, these homosexual groups will have things turned around so much that they will demand that everyone have at least one homosexual experience!
This isn't a matter of ex post facto application. The state will not be criminalizing a same-sex marriage that occurred before the amendment passed. It only says that such a marriage will not be recognized by the state.
It works the same as passage of Amendment XIII abolishing slavery. Just because someone happened to be a slave at the time that amendment was ratified does not mean that person remained a slave.
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.