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

Skip to comments.

California justices say marriage is 1-man, 1-woman
World Net Daily ^ | May 26, 2009 | WND

Posted on 05/26/2009 11:05:33 AM PDT by DesertRenegade

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 next last
Great decision!
1 posted on 05/26/2009 11:05:33 AM PDT by DesertRenegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Great news, but now let’s bring back Prop 187..!


2 posted on 05/26/2009 11:06:32 AM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Wow. I’m sort of shocked, actually.


3 posted on 05/26/2009 11:06:43 AM PDT by fleagle ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Dayum! They actually did something right!


4 posted on 05/26/2009 11:06:58 AM PDT by rockabyebaby (We are soooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

EXCELLENT! There’s a lil bit of hope for CA after all.


5 posted on 05/26/2009 11:07:49 AM PDT by ChrisInAR (The Tenth Amendment is still the Supreme Law of the Land, folks -- start enforcing it for a CHANGE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

It’ll be interesting to see how the gaystapo reacts to this.


6 posted on 05/26/2009 11:08:00 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

> Great news, but now let’s bring back Prop 187

GMTA.


7 posted on 05/26/2009 11:08:05 AM PDT by max americana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

I’m happy, but a tad confused..so now 17,000 or so illegal marriages are in fact legal..???


8 posted on 05/26/2009 11:08:50 AM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Finally !


9 posted on 05/26/2009 11:09:16 AM PDT by ßuddaßudd (7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

Oooooooooo, the gays are in such a kerfuffle over this ruling. Not pretty.


10 posted on 05/26/2009 11:12:21 AM PDT by RushIsMyTeddyBear (Obama. Clear and Pres__ent Danger.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gaijin

Yep, I’m still bitter over that one.


11 posted on 05/26/2009 11:13:19 AM PDT by Politicalmom ("Energy prices will necessarily skyrocket"-Zero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

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.


12 posted on 05/26/2009 11:19:01 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

This is exactly the way I called it, of course many others did also. Good decision.


13 posted on 05/26/2009 11:20:07 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

YOu explained quite well. The court made a conservative decision and stated clearly that Prop 8 did not invalidate those marriages.


14 posted on 05/26/2009 11:22:32 AM PDT by WilliamPatrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Well, they were legal anyway, thanks to the courts overturning a previous proposition, which is why prop 8 was made a constitutional amendment.

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).

15 posted on 05/26/2009 11:25:20 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

California affirms marriage purpose is procreation not joint tax returns.


16 posted on 05/26/2009 11:26:48 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

So I guess Carrie Prejean really does represent California


17 posted on 05/26/2009 11:29:27 AM PDT by ari-freedom (Fiscal conservatism without social conservatism is dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRenegade

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.


18 posted on 05/26/2009 11:30:52 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
It’ll be interesting to see how the gaystapo reacts to this.

Like they always do. With loving, tolerant, destructive riots.

19 posted on 05/26/2009 11:34:00 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MrB

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.


20 posted on 05/26/2009 11:34:00 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-70 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