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

Skip to comments.

Jerry Brown urges court to void Prop. 8 (Moonbeam changes position, reverses earlier stance)
ap on Sac Bee ^ | 12/19/08 | Lisa Leff - ap

Posted on 12/19/2008 6:01:51 PM PST by NormsRevenge

SAN FRANCISCO -- California Attorney General Jerry Brown has changed his position with respect to the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

Brown filed a brief Friday saying the measure, which amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman, is itself unconstitutional because it deprives gay couples of a fundamental right.

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 2008election; attygenjerrybrown; california; casupremecourt; gaystapo; governmentofmen; homosexualagenda; jerrybrown; kenstarr; lavendermafia; lisaleff; moonbeam; moralabsolutes; moralrelativism; persimmons; pervertpower; perverts; prop8; proposition8; queerlybeloved; religiousfreedom; sacramentobee; savage; savagenation; scumbag; talkradio; traditionalmarriage; traditionalvalues; void; votersbedammed; weinersboy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-135 last
To: Chet 99
Declaring a portion of the Constitution “unconstitutional” would be a judicial nuclear bomb.

Actually it is a good example of a fuse that will light the torch-bearing, pitchfork-waiving crowds to dethrone these disconnected wastes of skin.

Government needs to be reduced in size by 90%. Immediately. There are simply too many people doing too little except getting in the way of the other people who actually pay the bills in this country. A cull is in order, and a judiciary which slaps the electorate in the face is a great way to start one.

121 posted on 12/24/2008 12:21:56 AM PST by TonyStark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Marriage is not a “fundamental right” for anyone. There are minimum requirements.

Since marriage is, and always has been, by definition (i.e.: fundamentally), the union of one man and one woman, then how can it be “fundamental” to homosexuals?

These fools are attempting to redefine a Divine institution sanctioned by God. How far do we allow militant sodomites and their enablers to go until we get serious and take “definitive” action? We have wasted enough time playing the legal circle jerk with liberal morons. The courts are filled with perverted judges who would not know the meaning of justice if it slapped them in the face.


122 posted on 12/24/2008 9:08:31 AM PST by TCH (Another redneck clinging to guns and religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Anti-One

After we get them on those three ships, then we will send out an attack-class sub to finish the job.


123 posted on 12/24/2008 9:12:08 AM PST by TCH (Another redneck clinging to guns and religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan

Here is your better “mindset”: LOCK n’ LOAD!


124 posted on 12/24/2008 9:13:30 AM PST by TCH (Another redneck clinging to guns and religion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Eric Blair 2084

Have you noticed that the Muslims complain about everything but even with topics such as homosexuality that they agree on with Christians you never hear them take a public stand. But they find a Christian sign in a Long John Silver kids meal and they cry like babies. Maybe they should take a look at how hypocritical they are in their own faith.


125 posted on 12/24/2008 11:47:41 AM PST by red irish (Gods Children in the womb are to be loved too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Chet 99
I'm not even certain that you can declare a portion of the CONSTITUTION as UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Semantically it doesn't even wash. I suppose they could interpret a perceived inconsistency in the Constitution. But when something is duly added to the Constitution by the prescribed process it is by DEFINITION CONSTITUTIONAL.

I know I'm preaching to the choir but these quacks in California are just stupid.

Why don't they say what they mean: "How dare the people actually vote against the liberal agenda!"

126 posted on 12/25/2008 7:43:15 PM PST by politicalmerc (NObama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: red irish

Muslims and their stupid Sharia laws are not accepted here per se in the legal sense.

They never will be.

Even American Libs will shit on them for their anti-gay, anti-woman agenda. Unless they are throwing shoes at their own President and disrespecting him...than it’s OK.

Libs never take them to task otherwise.


127 posted on 12/26/2008 4:57:11 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Emile
IIRC, the Cal. courts have already overriden the people’s will by referendum, in the case of a proposition that prohibited the provision of social benefits to illegal immigrants.
It was a federal , not state, court, that did that.
128 posted on 12/26/2008 5:58:42 PM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Chinstrap61a
Watch for the first acts of Barry Obama's regime.
Which acts would they be?
129 posted on 12/26/2008 6:00:13 PM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: gjbevil

Scroom. They can find some little backwater country, take it over, wall it off, and have their own socialist paradise. I’m not giving up our country.


130 posted on 12/26/2008 7:15:42 PM PST by bootless (Never Forget. Never Again. And NEVER GIVE UP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dbz77
"Which acts would they be?"

I would guess restricting out liberty, starting with his promises on limiting the 2nd Amendment, for a start.

131 posted on 12/27/2008 4:38:47 AM PST by Chinstrap61a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Chinstrap61a
And exactly who is going to carry it out for him?
132 posted on 12/27/2008 9:07:22 AM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: dbz77
"And exactly who is going to carry it out for him?"

The same wonderful patriotic people that brought us Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the Elian Gonzalez kidnapping - who else?

We have had several years of evolving our police organizations away from the people and towards quasi-commando arms and armor.

Whom did you think that they plan to use all of this great new equipment on?

133 posted on 12/27/2008 11:19:38 AM PST by Chinstrap61a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Chinstrap61a
Of course, how successful would they be?

If the Iraqi insurgents kept the U.S. military at bay, American gun owners can certainly keep the FBI at bay.
134 posted on 12/27/2008 11:25:08 AM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

Sure - just like Waco.


135 posted on 12/30/2008 3:46:55 AM PST by Chinstrap61a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-135 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