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

Skip to comments.

California Proposition 8 ruling: PROP 8 UPHELD (faux marriages to remain)
local media

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: caglbt; gaystapo; homobama; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; marriage; moralabsolutes; panicinpervtown; prop8; proposition8; ruling; samesexmarriage; traditionalmarriage; willofthepeople
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-213 next last
To: Gay State Conservative
I frankly admit to knowing nothing about legal matters, but it does seem as though (using the standard of common sense rather than legal technicalities) allowing the previous "marriages" to stand somehow gives the queers something to stand on by being able to say "how are these 'marriages' legal when they've been ruled unconstitutional"? I don't know how that would work in a court, but it makes sense to me (I mean from their viewpoint. I of course vehemently disagree with the notion of queer "marriage", and to me it would only be common sense that if the court has also said so, then how can they say that the contracts previously engaged are "marriage"? )
61 posted on 05/26/2009 10:26:40 AM PDT by mrsmel (Put the Gitmo terrorists near Capitol Hill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

So if the Berkeley city government declared that men could marry sheep and the state passed an initiative to block it, the California Supreme Court could be expected to rule that the sheep marriages that occurred prior to their ruling on the issue would be allowed to stand.


62 posted on 05/26/2009 10:26:50 AM PDT by Mojave (Don't blame me. I voted for McClintock.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I got to keep all of my pre-ban magazines while the assault weapon ban was in place...

;-)


63 posted on 05/26/2009 10:26:50 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (FR. ....Monthly Donors Wanted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Is that the divorce rate for homosexuals? Do you have a source for it? Thanks.


64 posted on 05/26/2009 10:27:25 AM PDT by 1010RD (First Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
18,000 “marriages” to remain legal.

They last of them will be "divorced" within a few months anyway.

65 posted on 05/26/2009 10:27:31 AM PDT by WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

I’d read somewhere a while back that, when a constitutional measure is passed, as Prop 8 was, those who were “married” still have their status intact. It’s one of those quirks about constitutional actions, vs. a legislative decision.


66 posted on 05/26/2009 10:27:52 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Impeach President Soros!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

I don’t think the court should or can do anything about the already-contracted “marriages”, I’m just saying that such a decision could be mighty useful when the queers begin their next assault on marriage and the rights of the voters. But I also note that the courts certainly aren’t as squeamish when it comes to the Second Amendment.


67 posted on 05/26/2009 10:29:33 AM PDT by mrsmel (Put the Gitmo terrorists near Capitol Hill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

I think the leaving of the 18,000 is a stab at the voters by the judges.

You are right, they do see it as a ratchet effect.

Time to click the counter rotait button on the ratchet.


68 posted on 05/26/2009 10:30:28 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Good - no surpises.

The 18,000 “marriages” remain a legal fiction, the “spouses” entitled to whatever benefit they see in it. That’s probably fair.


69 posted on 05/26/2009 10:30:34 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

To all Bay Area Freeper’s

If you’re in SF, after work stay away from Civic Center, the cable car turnaround, lower Market Street and the Castro.

There’s going to be a “Day of Rage” protest/riot.

Planning is going on right now on Twitter.


70 posted on 05/26/2009 10:30:50 AM PDT by PanzerKardinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

Are you being sarcastic, or did you forget about Prop 187?


71 posted on 05/26/2009 10:31:11 AM PDT by Califreak (Stammer Lee, TOTUS and Beltway Bob have turned 1600 into a circus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

They got their foot in the door but haven’t knocked down the door... for now.

The Gaystapo won’t be happy until they rid the world of good, moral people.


72 posted on 05/26/2009 10:31:21 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (RECALL Abel Maldonado; DEPORT Arnold Schwarzenegger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

CNN had 2 women on who were married in a Church in 2005

The APOSTATE CHURCH with there 18 yr old daughter, who spoke like a mixed-up brainwashed teen saying...It’s all aboout LOVE, LOVE, LOVE......The brother is gay and I guess she has no clue she has some father somewhere over the rainbow....

The next generation will fail to exist, with what they are being spoon fed by the drivel, of such wicked evil liberals.


73 posted on 05/26/2009 10:31:48 AM PDT by TaraP (Unless we stand for something, we will fall for everything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Opposition is already looking to recall the judges.

PATHETIC!

74 posted on 05/26/2009 10:32:12 AM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
"The pervs will attempt to qualify a ballot initiative in an attempt to reverse the Prop 8 vote. The pervs will also continue to indoctrinate the children in our government schools and keep churning out "gay-friendly" voters.

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.

The margins of victory for "traditional" marriage have been shrinking everywhere it's been tested on the state level. California is no different. Without the record black turnout last November, this wouldn't have passed. Those blacks won't turn out again, in those numbers if Barry isn't on the ticket. I'll look for this to come up again in any year other than 2012.

The real test won't be in the states, but in the federal judiciary and in the Federal law. I still don't think there's anywhere near the votes necessary to repeal DOMA, nor will this Supreme Court (even with Sotomayer) rule DOMA unconstitutional. So, for the foreseeable future, the Federal government won't recognize these homosexual marriages. It's a least something on which to hang your hat.

75 posted on 05/26/2009 10:33:31 AM PDT by Big_Monkey (Obama Motors - you're going to pay for my cars whether you bought one or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

Now I'm hearing...
6-1 ruling that it was a valid change to the Constitution
76 posted on 05/26/2009 10:34:36 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (RECALL Abel Maldonado; DEPORT Arnold Schwarzenegger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red in Blue PA

You want Perez Hilton’s reaction?

He’s on twitter... Here’s what he said -

“California Supreme Court upholds discriminatory Prop 8!”

and

“Even though it was expected, it still doesn’t make it any less sad.”

There ya go!


77 posted on 05/26/2009 10:34:36 AM PDT by California74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Does that mean that even though the court ruled them as valid, they won’t be able to receive marriage benefits, tax breaks, etc? None of the legal issues of marriage will apply to them? Will they still have to divorce in a court when they split up, will the community laws still be applicable to them? I see where the court left a whole can of worms just waiting to be opened by the queer lobby.


78 posted on 05/26/2009 10:34:45 AM PDT by mrsmel (Put the Gitmo terrorists near Capitol Hill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Sarah Barracuda

they have overruled “The People” before.

Remember, this country is run by un-elected judges.


79 posted on 05/26/2009 10:35:16 AM PDT by TV Dinners (Hope is not a Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Califreak

If I’m not mistaken, Prop 187 was overturned by federal courts, not state.


80 posted on 05/26/2009 10:37:08 AM PDT by Sloth (The Second Amendment is the ultimate "term limit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 201-213 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