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

Skip to comments.

Calif. court refuses to stay gay marriage ruling
AP via SFGate ^ | 6/4/8

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 ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; caglbt; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; judiciary; playinghouse; samesexmarriage; sanfranciscovalues
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 next last

1 posted on 06/04/2008 9:34:05 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Won’t that cause a heck of a lot of confusion in November when gay marriage is banned again?


2 posted on 06/04/2008 9:36:58 AM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

Government by Sob Story depends on that.


3 posted on 06/04/2008 9:37:51 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


4 posted on 06/04/2008 9:37:57 AM PDT by Smogger (It's the WOT Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Just wait until the couples move to other states, suing for married benefits.


5 posted on 06/04/2008 9:39:08 AM PDT by SmithL (Reject Obama's Half-Vast Wright-Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

There has to be a way to get these legislating justices removed from the bench.


6 posted on 06/04/2008 9:39:11 AM PDT by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68

Californian voters do have the Rose Bird option. And I think it will be exercised on the Cali SCJs.


7 posted on 06/04/2008 9:41:15 AM PDT by TheDon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68
"There has to be a way to get these legislating justices removed from the bench. "

We got rid of Rose Bird that way!

8 posted on 06/04/2008 9:41:24 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("All gave some, and some gave all!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheDon

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?


9 posted on 06/04/2008 9:42:45 AM PDT by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Proof that the ruling was not legal, but political.
10 posted on 06/04/2008 9:47:17 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (We have people in power with desire for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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.


11 posted on 06/04/2008 9:48:26 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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?


12 posted on 06/04/2008 9:48:50 AM PDT by manc (a normal natural marriage is between a man and a woman, MA has a perverted sham marriages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Proof that the only way to deal with this is a federal constitutional amendment.


13 posted on 06/04/2008 9:49:25 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

just more gasoline on the fire...


14 posted on 06/04/2008 9:53:32 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

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 ?


15 posted on 06/04/2008 9:55:54 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Total judicial arrogance!


16 posted on 06/04/2008 9:57:23 AM PDT by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Sickening display of arrogance by an effete corp of impudent judicial elites.


17 posted on 06/04/2008 9:57:25 AM PDT by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

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.


18 posted on 06/04/2008 10:02:18 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk
Won’t that cause a heck of a lot of confusion in November when gay marriage is banned again?

Then the initiative will be overturned as being an ex post facto law. The courts have become something very sinister.

19 posted on 06/04/2008 10:03:38 AM PDT by Chaguito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
RECALL HAPPENING!
20 posted on 06/04/2008 10:04:05 AM PDT by notaliberal (Christ Our Hope!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-72 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