Posted on 11/20/2008 3:08:44 AM PST by driftdiver
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules. The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision. All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.myway.com ...
Isn’t that right reserved for the courts?
So basically the vote means nothing anymore. If something gets voted down people can simply bitch about the outcome and the courts will overturn the decision of the majority. That’s exactly what will happen in Calif.
I mean, just to be clear, it was a pretty significant re-writing of the English language to say that you could have two-of-a-kind in one marriage. That might have been one big step for the People, but it was one easy step for the Courts.
Aha, click for larger image and....
Rev. Amos Brown, a national board member of the NAACP, raises his hands as he speaks to a large crowd of supporters of same-sex marriage, as they cheer in front of San Francisco City Hall on Saturday, Nov. 15, 2008. Thousands of demonstrators gathered to listen to speakers and protest the passage of Proposition 8, a ballot measure amending California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The event is part of a simultaneous protest planned in in hundreds of communities. (AP Photo/Darryl Bush)
Exactly where in the Bill of Rights and our Constitution does it state that a criminal action is a protected right?
When the Constitution was written and for 2000 years of history prior, homosexual acts were crimes against nature and the law.
So how exactly is any civil right being violated when that right does not exist and never did exist? And is only now currently being fostered on society by homofacist and a socialist judiciary
So basically the vote means nothing anymore. If something gets voted down people can simply bitch about the outcome and the courts will overturn the decision of the majority. That’s exactly what will happen in Calif.
Don’t we wish. If that were true then the Obama Presidency would already be on hold. No this only works with the Homofacists and the Islamofacist and the Socialist. If you are just a hard working taxpaying American citizen you take what they give you and like it or else.......
Good question. According to the courts, what they say is equivalent to the Pope speaking ex cathedra.
My own view is that the courts themselves (including the USSC) should be subject to review and dissent by the executive and legislative branches. Just ask Andrew Jackson, who was both one of the most principled and the most ignorant presidents we have ever had!
It has happened before.
If California has amended the state constitution, then the court should have no voice. They must obey that document. I don't know what Prop 8 actually did, though.
This is what we get when we allow our elected officials to install activist judges.
Time to throw them all out and start with fresh ones. Elected officials and judges.
I wasnt aware of him but it makes sense. Conservatives need to start protesting.
I'm guessing you're right. I said so back before the election, and was hooted down over and over again here on FR.
The California Supremes are going to throw this out, and the fight is going to move on to the next level, with recalls and re-drafted amendments. The people are not going to accept gay marriage by judicial fiat.
You think this is ugly now. It's about to get much, much worse.
If the California Supremes had half a brain (hey, I said if....), they would decide that the State of California has no legitimate role in marriage in the first place, and that the sanctification of marriage is a private matter to be handled by individuals as they see fit. The state can then offer whatever domestic partnership rules they can devise to cover the necessary legal matters of taxation, property and child custody.
Frankly, I think that is the best solution to this problem.
Does the Federal or California Constitution contain the term, or refer to a, "vulnerable minority group"?
would benice...but conservatives have jobs, and normally families.
unlike the professional protesters for the other side.
Way, way too late for that.
The only question left is, is it still too early for the other thing?
No, that would be Jimmy Carter. Jackson was a Rhodes Scholar by comparison. Carter had a lot more "book-larnin'", but had zero common sense.
We will not have jobs much longer.
LLS
Apparently in California the People can “amend” the State Constitution, but they can’t “revise” it. If that makes any sense, and it doesn’t to me.
Apparently the argument to the court is that the People went too far, and in their attept to “amend” the Constitution, they actually “revised” it, which the State Supreme Court could then disallow.
This reads like complete hogwash to me, and maybe it is, but it is the situation as I am given to understand.
The California Supreme Court justices are elected. It’s been that way since California became a state.
A good case can be made for lynchings.
>>I’m guessing they say the people don’t have the power to change the constitution.
The attitude in government - at all levels - for too long has been “Take what we give you and shut up” and “Please contribute to my reelection campaign”. And the stupid people keep sending the same people back to govern them, OVER AND OVER.
When does it stop? When they say “No more elections”?
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.