Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court to hear gay marriage case
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_11619673?source=rss ^ | Fegbruary 3, 2009

Posted on 02/05/2009 12:01:14 PM PST by dbz77

The California Supreme Court will hear the legal showdown over gay marriage on March 5.

In a statement released today, the high court set three hours of arguments for its calendar in San Francisco, setting the stage for the justices to consider a series of legal challenges to voter-approved Proposition 8. Civil rights groups and a number of cities and counties, led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, sued after the November election, arguing that the ballot initiative is invalid and should be struck down.

Voters restored the ban on gay marriage, after the state Supreme Court last year found the prior law outlawing same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Attorney General Jerry Brown, in an unusual move, is also arguing that Proposition 8 should be struck down, maintaining that a ballot initiative cannot remove an existing constitutional right.

(Excerpt) Read more at presstelegram.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; prop8; queermarriage; sodomarriage; sosomites

1 posted on 02/05/2009 12:01:14 PM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dbz77

Oh gee! I wonder how they will rule. My guess is the people of California(those bigots!) will just have to realize how pathetic their judgement is and bow to the will of their superiors. Man the lifeboats.


2 posted on 02/05/2009 12:04:36 PM PST by D_Idaho ("For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbz77
Jerry Brown is a ^@&**#. Ballot initiative cannot remove an existing constitutional right

If the people no longer can determine what the laws are. Who Can?

3 posted on 02/05/2009 12:05:13 PM PST by An Old Man (Use it up, Wear it out, Make it do, or Do without.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D_Idaho

Not necessarily. They ruled the ballot initiative had to be allowed.


4 posted on 02/05/2009 12:13:36 PM PST by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

They will hear this case; but they won’t hear whether Obama is legal or not.


5 posted on 02/05/2009 12:17:35 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbz77
Brown should be impeached and removed from office for deriliction of duty; he refuses to do his job as AG.

The CSC will find a legalistic manuever to declare that the amendment was improperly handled and so is invalid. At that point, they should be impeached and removed from office.

Then Brown and the former CSC members should be prosecuted under the RICO act for conspiring against the will of Californians. It won't get anywhere, but hopefully, it should scare the bejeebus out of the liberals and really push them over the edge!

6 posted on 02/05/2009 12:41:52 PM PST by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

To hell with gay marriage!.....Give me my damn tax refund!


7 posted on 02/05/2009 12:57:40 PM PST by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D_Idaho

I really believe that the Supremes are going to get involved in a big way sooner or later. Actually, I would like to see them force the hand of all state legislature to either firm up their states’ constitutions either pro or con, or force state legislatures to take action. I really don’t want the Supremes making this kind of a decision as they did on Roe v Wade. It’s a legislative decision niot a judicial decision. I have also heard various arguments floating around about propositions, referenda, or any direct vote by the people on an issue. When these direct initiatives are put forth for the people to vote directly on, I really wonder how much scrutiny is given to its constitutional viability. Propositions and referenda do give a good assessment on how the public feels about such things, but as law what are the chances of it not being constitutionally shot to shreds.


8 posted on 02/05/2009 1:22:58 PM PST by brooklyn dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

Time for a constitutional amendment.

That’s the only way to stop this judicial activism.


9 posted on 02/05/2009 1:34:34 PM PST by NoKoolAidforMe (1-20-09--The Beginning of an Error..............1-20-13--Change we can look forward to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dbz77
Link to CSC Proposition 8 Cases

Looks like there are a long list of Amicus briefs on this issue. Like all things Legal it's kinda obtuse. "Petitioners" and "Support of Petitioners" appears to be the Anti Prop 8 side of the argument. "Respondents and Interveners" appear to be the Pro Prop 8 side.

Any CA Lawyers out there ought to weigh in because it looks to be 3 against to one for. Not that the CSC should be adjuticating by a count of amicus.

10 posted on 02/05/2009 2:03:11 PM PST by BoneHead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
They [Cali. SC] ruled the ballot initiative had to be allowed.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the original ruling last year was issued because there was an absence of the definition of marriage in the Constitution, and the justices ruled on that basis, wrong as it was. Since there now IS a definitive amendment in the CA Constitution, the SC now has no basis for a negative ruling. I'm very hopeful on this.

11 posted on 02/07/2009 6:20:37 PM PST by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson