Posted on 05/26/2009 10:03:42 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
“but existing “married” couples to remain.”
Can they challenge that from a discrimination standpoint?
Let the militant gays go after the judges now.
That may be an interesting challenge down the road though, i.e. “I was married before, now divorced, now I can’t remarry? Discrimination!”
It does seem that the court gave the gay agenda crowd some wiggle room for future challenges.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
—That’s why I’m postponing any glee from this ruling. It’s only a matter time, measured in years not decades, until California amends this amendment—
It’s great that Prop 8 passed, and was essentially upheld by the CA SCT. It’s NOT so great that it only passed 52-48 percent—and most white (and Asian) voters voted AGAINST Prop 8. That shows some serious moral weakness in California, if not across the enitre “Fruited Plain.”
They courted the Mexicans too. Some consequences are unintended.
Watch them start attacking the Catholic Church and Hispanic pastors. Pray for them.
Why would you be interested in seeing them?
It's a repeat like in the days of Noah, except for water we'll get fire.
The amendment was meant to confirm the fact that homosexual "marriage" doesn't exist (isn't valid), there's no such thing, any more than a cat is a hamster. It takes a political ruling to come up with anything else. This isn't justice.
I think folks would be surprised at how many do.
>>Of course they uphold it. Anyone who thought otherwise is crazy. They would never overturn the vote of the people<<
I hope you were joking, judges have overturned several propositions in Kalifornia. One of the reasons I left.
I was being sarcastic, but I forgot to put the /sarcasm thing at the end
I miss the California of 20 years ago. It's not the same place anymore.
The real issue here is that society is a group of people living together and amongst each other. It is how nations are formed.
The basic building block of society is the family. It takes a man and a woman to make a child (forget for now the stupid sperm and egg donor crap), and it takes a family to raise a child (not a village!).
Homos cannot create families.
Allow homos to marry and you break down marriage.
Break down marriage and you break down families.
Break down families and you break down society.
Break down society and you destroy a nation.
True. Even the Nuremburg Laws did not dissolve existing Jew-Aryan marriages.
The decision has already done that:
Applying similar reasoning in the present context, we properly must view the adoption of Proposition 8 as carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution as interpreted by the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757. The scope of the exception created by Proposition 8, however, necessarily is determined and limited by the specific language and scope of the new constitutional provision added by the ballot measure. Here the new constitutional provision (art. I, § 7.5) provides in full: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." By its terms, the new provision refers only to "marriage" and does not address the right to establish an officially recognized family relationship, which may bear a name or designation other than "marriage." Accordingly, although the wording of the new constitutional provision reasonably is understood as limiting use of the designation of "marriage" under California law to opposite-sex couples, and thereby modifying the decision in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757, insofar as the majority opinion in that case holds that limiting the designation of "marriage" to the relationship entered into by opposite-sex couples constitutes an impermissible impingement upon the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process, the language of article I, section 7.5, on its face, does not purport to alter or affect the more general holding in the Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, enjoy the constitutional right, under the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution, to establish an officially recognized family relationship. Because, as a general matter, the repeal of constitutional provisions by implication is disfavored (see, e.g., In re Thiery S. (1979) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744; Warne v. Harkness (1963) 60 Cal.2d 579, 587-588), Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship.Legalese-to-English Translation: Proposition 8 is strictly limited to the use of the word "marriage". The state is still obligated to provide access to the exact equivalent under some other label.
It's a bittersweet victory because of the travesty of allowing illegal "marriages" to exist when no real harm would be done by invalidating them. But, yes. It is amusing in a way. They will be looked upon as a novelty, something that's not allowed - and so will have a bit of stigma attached to their "status." And any cat fights with the envious will just be icing.
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.