[FlingWingFlyer]

It’s not “We the People’s” government anymore. The government has taken over and it’s our fault for letting them do it.

[kjam22]

Let’s see... the court is going to decide if it is constitutional for the people to ammend the constitution? Now that’s a slippery slope.

[JRandomFreeper]

Brown told the court in a filing that he doesn't think that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision or that it violates the constitutional separate of powers. But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.

Which liberty? The liberty to rewrite the laws and language that have stood for thousands of years for a political agenda?

Or the liberty to queer off?

Because they have the liberty to hump each other.

They don't have the liberty to rewrite the language and destroy society.

/johnny

[Marie2]

“Calif. Supreme Court Could Strike Down Proposition 8”

Or, it could uphold it. But that wouldn’t make such a pleasurable headline for the MSM, would it?

[pennyfarmer]

But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.
I don't care who you have sex with, I don't even care who you leave your Mini Cooper too. But guess what you can't get married. If I can't apply for minority scholarships then you can't get married its as simple as that.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Brown told the court in a filing that he doesn't think that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision or that it violates the constitutional separate of powers. But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.

There is absolutely no violation to liberty. They can have their faux marriage ceremonies and celebrations, and they can will to whomever they choose.

On the contrary, overturning Prop 8 is a violation of our liberties. Our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion, as well as thought and conscience are under attack from the radical homosexual movement. It is also a assault on our voting rights for a second time in this matter. Do we live in a Republic or an Oligarchy? We'll determine the state of our Republic shortly.

[BigFinn]

You know they will do it. They've already done it once... and they are poising to do it again. They have their agenda, and by golly, they are going to get it in "whether you like it or not". (Newsom's recent declaration)

So then what?

[CounterCounterCulture]

The plaintiff groups are six same-sex couples and a civil rights organization, Equality California

NOT a civil rights organization. A homosexual advocacy organization.

Don't let them get away with this propaganda.

[sten]

why bother voting?

[L.N. Smithee]

Brown told the court in a filing that he doesn't think that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision or that it violates the constitutional separate of powers. But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.

Moonbeam Brown knew exactly what it was when the Gay-stapo demanded that he change the language the title from “California Limits to Marriage Amendment” to “Elimination of the Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." He just thought that change would kill it.

This is dereliction of duty by the Attorney General, who is supposed to represent The People of the State of California. The People have spoken, but Brown -- even in rejecting the supposed best argument against Prop 8 -- is still ignoring the electorate, just like his predecessor. The only reason why the whole question of legality of same-sex marriage made it to the California Supreme Court last year is because the last AG, Democrat Bill Lockyer, sent an CA Appeals court invalidation of Gavin Newsom's rogue marriages to the Supremes for review. They did just what Lockyer wanted -- they overturned it, and created a right to same-sex marriage from whole cloth.

And you Weiner Nation fans, don't ever forget -- this whole deal is partly HIS fault. Savage sent Brown's AG campaign $5,600.00 and blew off conservative Republican candidate Chuck Poochigian.

[Penny]

For what it's worth, here's the end of a length reply I had from Arnold:

"Proposition 8 now appears to have passed, pending certification by the Secretary of State. Some people, however, have filed lawsuits challenging the amendment's legality. Both the official proponents of Proposition 8 and opponents of Proposition 8 urged the California Supreme Court to hear the lawsuits directly, bypassing the lower courts, and I am pleased that the court has agreed to hear the cases in order to provide the people of California with finality regarding Proposition 8. Whether the Court rules in favor of or against Proposition 8, I will uphold its decision.
"Again, thank you for taking time to write and share your comments."

I object to a previous comment that it's "our" fault. Many of us work our hearts out trying to let right be done, so the blame must be directed elsewhere.

Regards . . . Penny

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

So, how can the Cali Supreme Court strike down a state constitutional amendment and still keep a straight face?

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

“The court gave Brown 30 minutes, but instructed him to “divide his time between his arguments in support of, and his argument in opposition to, the validity of Proposition 8.”

The ultimate “Kerryism!”

[jeffc]

Brownie boy needs to be told what his job is and what he is charged with doing in that capacity, whether he likes it or not.
The CSC needs to understand that overturning this AMENDMENT will signify that they themselves have over-stepped their bounds by ruling part of the Constitution (the amemndment) unconstitutional. What would prevent them from ruling other parts of it, that they do not like, unconstitutional?

They also need to beware that overturning this could severely split the nation, as conservatives will, rightly, interpret this to mean that they no longer have a say in their government. I would further mention a word of caution (not a threat - more of a watch-what-you-do-man thing!); let things get out of hand like this and they might not make it to an impeachment trial . . .

[fwdude]

Biased article. The Court might not strike it down, as well.

[waxer1]

The people of California voted on this twice! and in overwhelming numbers to boot.

This is insane! Being a native Californian, this type of things happen all the time. It was always so frustrating.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Brown told the court in a filing that he doesn’t think that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision or that it violates the constitutional separate of powers. But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.”

---

Let’s see, the only theory under which a California constitutional amendment could be “unconstitutional” under the state constitution is if it was not adopted correctly (such as if it was a “revision” requiring legislative supermajorities for its proposal instead of a plain-vanilla amendment that could be proposed by citizen initiative), and the only way that Prop 8 could be deemed not to have been adopted correctly is if it were deemed to be a constitutional “revision,” and Jerry Brown admits that Prop 8 is *not* a constitutional “revision,” but he still argues-—in a legal forum!-—that this amendment to the California constitution that he admits was validly adopted is somehow unconstitutional? This guy must have done WAY too much drugs in the 60s and 70s.

If a script writer came up with this scenario, nobody would think his movie would be even remotely plausible.

[norwaypinesavage]

Granted, its only Kalifornia, but it is very, very frightening when the court attempts to overturn the constitution.

[MIT-Elephant]

Everybody who lives there and is reading this should think about leaving California. It has ceased to carry the republican form of government...it is a kleptocracy, taking from producers to address all sorts of fake and fashionable needs.

I’d move out of it if I hadn’t already done so! Great decision.

[kaehurowing]

“Calif. Supreme Court Could Strike Down Prop 8”

The again, they could not. . .

Typical sensationalist MSM headline.