Posted on 05/26/2009 10:03:42 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
The California Supreme Court rules to UPHOLD Proposition 8 (which put into the California state constitution that marriage is defined as being between a man and woman)
The court also ruled on the validation of the pseudo-marriages performed before passage of Prop 8.
Read Big_Monkey’s post #98. I’d love for you to be correct, but I’m afraid that he is correct.
Moreno needs to be recalled NOW.
Target rich environment
Fire at will.
I think, it follows that the gay “spouses” will be able to enjoy whatever benefits would accrue to them if they were opposite sex couples married under law. The principle here is that supposedly they acted in good faith under the law that was held as valid at the time.
I think it is wise to just let them be.
...and in the eyes of the dems/libs...it'll be "settled" law....exempt from ever being overturned, which is what they've demanded with the Roe v. Wade..."settled once and for all."
I’d love to just let them be, I only wonder if the queer lobby will just let them be, instead of using them as a starting point in some fashion, to contest this yet again.
In order to dissolve the unions during the time it was legal - they would have to keep them legal so they could divorce. Once they divorce they could not remarry and if the rate is as high as I have read there probably only about 5000 that are still legally married.
I have a friend who lives in the City and works on Van Ness Ave. Hope she can get into work okay...
WOW! Two good Tuesdays in a row! What can we look forward to next Tuesday?
Exactly. When opinion or law goes against them, it’s only for the meantime. Once they achieve their goal, it’s set in stone. They always state “it’s the law of the land” re Roe vs Wade, as if it’s the law of gravity. But they don’t apply that standard to laws with which they disagree. They just keep on and on until they get their way, then apply the brakes.
Good one!
The difference is that Prop 8 was a Constitutional Amendment. I guess they couldn't figure out how to say a Constitutional Amendment is not Constitutional.
“Of course they uphold it. Anyone who thought otherwise is crazy. They would never overturn the vote of the people”
Dunt underestimate the insanity of the judges. This semi-sane ruling is aprtly attributable to the fact that Judge Rose Bird was kicked off the court. That keeps the judges on a tighter leash.
“5-2 ruling”
What did the 2 say? “F U people of Cali”???
Prop 187....
Pictures?
ugly pink riots are good exposure for the rest of america to wake up to the weirdness of these advocates.
‘Homosexual Marrriage’ is an oxymoron.
I think they wanted to leave the easier process for legalizing homosexual based marriages by petition.
I think they know they screwed up when they did not force the legislative issue prior. However the judges assumed since they legalized it, the people would be sheep. (or allow the sheep to be married)
The 18k IS a poison pill.
Now if only the voters of Massachusetts/Maine/Cali etc. would be allowed to decide the issue.
The people do NOT want to redefine marriage. PERIOD.
The people need to start unelecting those responsible for contradicting the people on this.
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.