Posted on 05/30/2008 11:11:45 AM PDT by SmithL
San Francisco, CA (AP) -- The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.
The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
The attorneys general say they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California. They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Well can’t they simply say “look Cali, we’re not recognizing your gay ‘marriages’ in our state”??
See what happens. This is why the Calif. ruling could be much more far reaching than the Mass. ruling. Mass. has a law that out-of-staters can’t get married if their marriage isn’t recognized in their home state. But Calif. has no such law.
Stay tuned. If the voters don’t overturn this decision in November, it will trigger lawsuits in many states as out of state people get married and return to their home states to file lawsuits. That has been the goal of gay activits all along, to have same-sex marriage spread via the courts. And then eventually get the federal courts involved to impose 50 state same-sex marriage.
Gavin Newsom bragged that its’ coming nationwide and we can’t stop it. We’ll see if he’s right.
It depends on the judges. Liberal judges will say that their states are obligated to recognize the gay “marriages”. That’s the whole point, the gay activists are going to drag it through the courts in many more states. If liberal judges are the ones who are going to decide, then we know what will happen.
Thank God that 27 states have passed constitutional amendments in their state constitution to prevent that from happening. The other 23 states are currently the ones at risk of their liberal judges overturning their marriage laws.
I leave the rest to your imagination.
What a feable gesture. Don’t these state AG’s know Cali has an agenda to push? Time’s a-wasten!
Another pending disaster of LIBERALISM. Thanks to Kalifornia’s radical liberal assembly. At least these other states have it right. We did not miss the fact that our “state” of Kalifornia did not let the VOTERS DECIDE the issue. The voters did once, voted it down (Prop 22) and the libs just ignored the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Nice to live in a state run by law-breaking socialists...
Didn’t some of these states already pass their own bans on same-sex marriages?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Once again they are trying to hijack the meaning of words to give the appearance of normalcy and acceptance.
“Gay” = homosexual for example
I think that in the long run, Gavin Newsom is going to find that rather than advance the cause of so-called gay “rights” in this country, he will have set them back completely. Had he not tried his grandstanding on this issue to garner himself some headlines, there would have been no face-off in the California Supreme Court.
Newsom and the activists cannot understand that as of this moment, no one knows if this sexual orientation is by choice or biology and, as such, have overestimated the willingness of the American public to overturn thousands of years of tradition to accommodate a single group that as of now is not even a recognized protected class under federal law. If he thought this would launch him to the national stage, he is sorely, sorely mistaken.
I believe that the voters of California will approve the Amendment on the November ballot - and I don’t care how many polls the L.A. Times and the San Francisco Chronicle push forward in an attempt to skew voters. We can say any P.C. thing we want to a pollster (are you listening, NObama?) - but when we get into the secrecy of the voting booth, we vote as we really feel.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
We’ll see about the Calif. vote. Calif. is socially liberal state.
I wonder about the polls too. These polls indicate it will be close. The last poll on Prop. 22 before that election showed 52% in favor but it ended up with 61% supporting it, when voted on in March of 2000.
Key question could be, has Calif. opinion gotten more liberal on the issue over the years, are enough voters frustrated that we have courts setting social policy?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage... Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah... [AGs] want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election...Gosh, wouldn't have anything to do with the polling numbers of the Demwits, by any chance, would it?
I dont think this thing will get overturned....
If we allow our suspicious minds to wander further, it could also have something to do with those states not wanting an anti-gay marriage initiative on their November ballots, knowing such an initiative would bring out conservatives and Republicans (I have to separate those) in droves, just as it did in the 2004 election.
True, but what we really hate is watching the courts, using whatever judicial ju-jitsu they can, overturn votes that were decisive. Props 187, 209, 22 - all of them won handily, and yet the U.S. District Court in San Francisco and the California Supreme Court overturned all of them.
Also, this is one of the biggest states against drivers licenses for illegals and amnesty. True, we voted in the medical marijuana law because we thought we were doing something compassionate for people with disease that could be helped. I think in light of the “pot stores” and abuses that have resulted, if you put the question to the voters again, they’d reverse themselves.
I think “marriage” is just one of those issues that hit people right in the gut - blacks and hispanics and a lot of moderates are against changing the traditional definition.
No, I don’t believe they can. There is a federal statute that requires states to recognize certain things that other states do, and I believe this falls under that category.
I would be happy to be wrong here, but I don’t believe I am.
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.