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

Skip to comments.

California Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage ban nears (Prop 8 ruling)
San Jose Mercury News ^ | 20 May 2009 | Howard Mintz

Posted on 05/21/2009 11:03:40 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture

California Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage ban nears

The clock is ticking down on the California Supreme Court's imminent decision on whether to uphold Proposition 8, the voter-approved ballot measure restoring the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Based on regulations that require the justices to rule within 90 days of oral arguments in a case, the Supreme Court's decision in the legal challenge to Proposition 8 now will fall on one of three remaining days: Tuesday or next Thursday, or June 1. The high court normally only rules on Mondays and Thursdays, but will issue rulings next Tuesday because of the Memorial Day holiday Monday.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistjudges; calsupremecourt; gaymarriage; gaystapo; gaystapotactics; hatecrimes; homosexualagenda; judicialtyranny; lavendermafia; marriage; prop8; proposition8; samesexmarriage; traditionalmarriage; willofthepeople
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: CounterCounterCulture

Self-government. What a quaint notion. *sniff*


21 posted on 05/21/2009 11:22:23 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Independent Party - 'partisans only for the truth' - www.AIPNEWS.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Not so sure on the pseudo-marriages that were performed before passage of Prop 8.

The clowns have to explain/define just HOW the queers consummate their "marriage", on the basis that if a marriage was never consummated, then it never existed :-D

22 posted on 05/21/2009 11:22:53 AM PDT by m4629
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mind Freed
"A Republic... if you can keep it."

The oligarchs are pressing hard to remove any last trace of our Republic, and they'll be more than happy to do it with the gaystapo. This is pretty much our last line in the sand in California.

23 posted on 05/21/2009 11:24:30 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: m4629

Ick. I’d bet comsummation never enters the ruling.


24 posted on 05/21/2009 11:27:08 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

scary, courts are king


25 posted on 05/21/2009 11:27:36 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

That will have to be addressed after RW II...

Article 3 will have to include some language to the effect that courts may not overturn laws nor go beyond the laws and constitution as written.
Also, that the courts are not to be the final arbiter of law, but state legislatures withhold that power.


26 posted on 05/21/2009 11:30:23 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
We must respect the ruling of our mighty oligarchs. We must never come under the illusion of ancient notions like "of the people, by the people, for the people."

We are a nation governed by laws. But when the courts try to make law from the bench, then we are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of whims when judges usurp the duties of the legislature. Is that something along the lines of what you mean?

As for the phrase "of the people, by the people, and for the people", that was written and spoken by a big government Republican, Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps he took his first name too seriously and thought he was the father of a sacred race.

27 posted on 05/21/2009 11:31:08 AM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Argus
That's right. To wit:

Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition in California that added the following text to Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution: Only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California.

28 posted on 05/21/2009 11:32:04 AM PDT by Mr Ducklips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Ick. I’d bet comsummation never enters the ruling.

Ah, then it would be grounds for legal challenge wouldn't it? :-D

29 posted on 05/21/2009 11:33:35 AM PDT by m4629
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: m4629
It's a North-South issue there. For the most part Southern California tends more conservative but from Santa Barbara north, it is a raging cauldron of liberal B.S.

I hope they follow through on the attempt to split the state and that Northern California succeeds. They have effectively departed the US morally and their idea of mainstream politics is Boxer and Pelosi although I'm sure they would welcome Waxman from the peoples republic of Santa Monica.

30 posted on 05/21/2009 11:39:00 AM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

We believe that allowing people to vote is unConstitutional....


31 posted on 05/21/2009 11:43:26 AM PDT by Tzimisce (http://groups.myspace.com/nailthemessiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent

No way man, is that old bat still alive?


32 posted on 05/21/2009 11:49:00 AM PDT by Joe Boucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
That's pretty much what they'd be saying because the law allows the state Constitution to be amended by referendum. It does not say what the referendum can be.
33 posted on 05/21/2009 11:50:45 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
Agreed.

We are a nation of checks and balances, and judges are beholden to the constitution and rule in conjunction with the constitution, not granted the power to usurp the constitution. When they usurp, that makes them oligarchs and the people are just mere subjects.

34 posted on 05/21/2009 11:59:16 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
What I don’t understand is, the CA Supremes already ruled that prop 8 could go forward. If it was not legit than why was it allowed to go on the ballot in the first place?

A very astute observation. The same happened in Florida, but the opponents still want to challenge it.
Whatever happens in CA, both sides are currently working on their appeals to the Apellate Courts. The losing side will appeal. This will not end with the CSC.

35 posted on 05/21/2009 12:01:07 PM PDT by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pfflier
It's a North-South issue there. For the most part Southern California tends more conservative but from Santa Barbara north, it is a raging cauldron of liberal B.S.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Many people make the mistake of thinking that the only thing north of LA is San Francisco. Pretty much all of northern California except for San Francisco and the surrounding areas and, recently, Sacramento, is majority conservative. That's a lot of counties.
36 posted on 05/21/2009 12:08:10 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pfflier
It's a North-South issue there.

Nope, it's an East-West issue. The eastern parts of CA are far more conservative than the coastal parts.

37 posted on 05/21/2009 12:09:13 PM PDT by rivercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Well at least Califorians GOT a chance to vote on this......TWICE! That’s something that those of us in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts NEVER got!(otherwise,we would have tossed out gay “marriage”,too).


38 posted on 05/21/2009 12:15:52 PM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

California’s state constitution is REALLY broken. It needs to be completely re-written. Maybe someone can explain to me how the state supreme court can get involved in an amendment to the constitution. I can see how they can overturn a law, but not a constitutional amendment. Only federal court should have jurisdiction. My understanding of the US constitution is that this is one of the checks and balances. Amending the constitution allows the states to super-cede the Supreme Court and they cannot overturn it. They are sworn to uphold it— even if they disagree.

hh


39 posted on 05/21/2009 12:22:57 PM PDT by hoosier hick ((I'm back to..) Note to RINOs: We need a choice, not an echo. (Barry Goldwater))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Even if it is upheld by the state supreme court, the pro gays are gathering signatures to put this on the ballot in 2010. That battle will even be uglier than the fight for prop 8.

They are relentless and little by little they will get there way as oppostion to gay marriage decreases as more young people get older and vote.


40 posted on 05/21/2009 12:38:09 PM PDT by skyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 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.

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