Skip to comments.Calif. court refuses to stay gay marriage ruling
Posted on 06/04/2008 9:34:04 AM PDT by SmithL
San Francisco, CA (AP) --
California's highest court has refused to stay until after the November election its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue.
An initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage has qualified for the ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision.
The Supreme Court says its ruling will be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Won’t that cause a heck of a lot of confusion in November when gay marriage is banned again?
Government by Sob Story depends on that.
More fuel to the fire. This incenses me so much I think that will go over to http://www.protectmarriage.com/donate.php right now and make a donation. I suggest the rest of you Calfornia’s do the same.
Just wait until the couples move to other states, suing for married benefits.
There has to be a way to get these legislating justices removed from the bench.
Californian voters do have the Rose Bird option. And I think it will be exercised on the Cali SCJs.
We got rid of Rose Bird that way!
By the way, you notice how the Libs love the courts when they push their gay marriage agenda, but hated them in 2000 during the general election?
They don’t want to stay the implementation of their edict because they know the referendum will succeed. They plan to invalidate the constitutional referendum on the grounds that it is illegally ex-post facto - effectively stripping individuals of rights they already have.
Not a surprise at all
Everyone in the country I would have thought would be fuming at this decision, the ovters voted on what they wanted and the judges over turn the will of the people and make a law.Just what utter nonsense this is, imagine these homosexuals thinking they are married and then whe the constitution is changed word for word by the people the homosexuals will now not be married.
It’s like those in massachusetts, they think they are married and when they get out of the state they are not in most of the ocuntry.
One person who has a homosexual friend said that his woman boss is married , I had to correct him and say no they think they are but ion this state (Florida) they are not so they can dream all they want
Why also do we not see this being covered on the likes of hannity, on fox etc?
Proof that the only way to deal with this is a federal constitutional amendment.
just more gasoline on the fire...
Why is anyone surprised?
I do have a question on this request. Has any court ever postponed the effective date of a ruling until election day before ?
Total judicial arrogance!
Sickening display of arrogance by an effete corp of impudent judicial elites.
It will also generate even more lawsuits, if the ban goes into effect. They will say that any same-sex marriage from June to November’s election will still be legal and valid. Or the courts will be asked that specific question and will rule that they are valid, I’m sure.
I understand that Political Correctness says that gay marriage should be allowed. But has public opinion really shifted significantly on the issue? If voters in state after state had voted to allow it rather than to ban it, the debate would be entirely different. If same-sex marriage is so obviously a good policy or law, then state after state would vote to allow it rather than to ban it.
I know Calif. had passed a same-sex marriage law, which Arnold s. vetoed. I don’t like that they are both in court and trying to pass a law on the subject. If it’s true that it’s a “civil rights” issue not subject to a vote, then how can they be trying to change the law? If they try to change the law legislatively, they are admitting that it’s a legislative/policy issue, to be determined in a legislature or a referendum.
Then the initiative will be overturned as being an ex post facto law. The courts have become something very sinister.
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.