Posted on 05/26/2009 11:05:33 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
The California Supreme Court today affirmed a voter-approved state constitutional amendment that limits marriage to one man and one woman.
But in a decision today that essentially was a 6-1 vote, the court upheld the estimated 17,000 to 18,000 same-sex relationships that were formalized last year between its approval of "gay marriage" in May and the November ballot initiative that overruled the decision
"We conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision. As a quantitative matter, petitioners concede that Proposition 8 – which adds but a single, simple section to the Constitution – does not constitute a revision," said the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George.
"As a qualitative matter, the act of limiting access to the designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not have a substantial or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment. Contrary to petitioners' claim in this regard, the measure does not transform or undermine the judicial function; this court will continue to exercise its traditional responsibility to faithfully enforce all of the provisions of the California Constitution, which now include the new section added through the voters' approval of Proposition 8," he said.
"Furthermore, the judiciary's authority in applying the state Constitution always has been limited by the content of the provisions set forth in our Constitution, and that limitation remains unchanged," said George.
At issue was the Proposition 8 state constitutional amendment adopted by voters in November. At its adoption it became part of the state constitution, defining marriage as being between one man and one woman only.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Great news, but now let’s bring back Prop 187..!
Wow. I’m sort of shocked, actually.
Dayum! They actually did something right!
EXCELLENT! There’s a lil bit of hope for CA after all.
It’ll be interesting to see how the gaystapo reacts to this.
> Great news, but now let’s bring back Prop 187
GMTA.
I’m happy, but a tad confused..so now 17,000 or so illegal marriages are in fact legal..???
Finally !
Oooooooooo, the gays are in such a kerfuffle over this ruling. Not pretty.
Yep, I’m still bitter over that one.
The marriages were legal when they were entered into. Whether or not one agrees with the court’s decision last year to legalize gay marriage, it’s absolute fact that the marriages entered into after that decision but before prop 8 were done so legally . The question before the court was whether prop 8 invalidated such marriages or just applied going forward. The court decided that under its precedent the prior marriages should remain valid.
This is exactly the way I called it, of course many others did also. Good decision.
YOu explained quite well. The court made a conservative decision and stated clearly that Prop 8 did not invalidate those marriages.
The Court should have thrown this case out and never heard it to begin with, you can't find a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. The homos were saying it was a "revision" and therefore could be overturned, but they didn't have a leg to stand on. The reason the court agreed(IMO)to hear this case was so they could declare the previous marriages valid. Once they get divorced or die off there will be no more homo marriages in CA(Knock on Wood).
California affirms marriage purpose is procreation not joint tax returns.
So I guess Carrie Prejean really does represent California
OK decision, but now you have thousands of people who are legally married in California, all because of a ruling of the court, for which California has to grant the rights which are now prohibited by the constitution.
Like they always do. With loving, tolerant, destructive riots.
Yep I wonder if we will see more protests at Mormon churches and all that.
It would be interesting to stick the microphone in the face of Perez Hilton and get his reaction.
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.