CALIFORNIA: State high court refuses to remove same-sex marriage ban from ballot

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 87/16/8 | Bob Egelko

[SmithL]

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court refused today to remove a proposed ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot.

The initiative, Proposition 8, is a state constitutional amendment that would overturn the court's May 15 ruling allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry in California.

Gay-rights advocates sued June 19 to block a vote on Prop. 8, arguing that the measure would destroy fundamental rights that can't legally be abolished by an initiative.

[Diver Dave]

Gay-rights advocates sued June 19 to block a vote on Prop. 8,...

Come November, I, and a host of voters will be telling Gay-rights advocates to pound sand.

[Diogenesis]

Wow. A vote to them, Romney and his BOTs, must be like
water to the wicked-witch of the West

[padre35]

Wow..surprising, but this ain’t over yet, even if the People of Kalifornia vote to implement the Amendment, the lawyers will be undaunted, Gay Divorces are a potential revenue source for them, they are not going to give merely because a majority of CA Voters do not want it to happen...

[llevrok]

Come November, I, and a host of voters will be telling Gay-rights advocates to pound sand

or pound mud.

[MeanWestTexan]

That’s wonderful news.

[Dawnsblood]

Good let the people decide and keep the courts out of it.

[DoughtyOne]

I love the smell of “Smack-Down” in the air!

November 4th, KABOOM!!!!

What do you think, 70/30%, 80/20%?

[doorgunner69]

Well, since homos can only recruit, not breed, the % should be roughly what it was last time with Prop. 22. About 2-1 if I recall.

[Secret Agent Man]

I think the percentages will be about what they were when the CA marriage amendment was voted on and passed. I think it will be about the same because both sides are ramping up for this (both sides have a lot of pissed off people on them) and so I think the percentages will be about what they were for the prior amendment.

[DoughtyOne]

Well, I hope you’re wrong. I’d like to see it 90/10. I think your assumptions are much more sound than my desires. ;-)

[Secret Agent Man]

I thought the percentages were pretty good, weren’t they about 60/40? That’s a 20 point swing over the wrong side, which is great for being in CA. Hell in WI it was 60/40.

[Paleo Conservative]

Wow..surprising, but this ain’t over yet, even if the People of Kalifornia vote to implement the Amendment, the lawyers will be undaunted, Gay Divorces are a potential revenue source for them, they are not going to give merely because a majority of CA Voters do not want it to happen...

[GalaxieFiveHundred]

Uh oh, can the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturn this, or is it safe as is?

[CounterCounterCulture]

Fabulous :-)

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. I’m just expressing my inner thoughts on it. I want to see homosexual marriage burried, with a wooden sake through it’s heart.

[CounterCounterCulture]

I’m a bit more pessimistic. I think the outcome will be tighter. Eight years since Prop 22 passed, and we’ve had eight years of government school indoctrination and media indoctrination. The trends show the newer generation of voters more accepting of homosexuality.

Nonetheless, Proposition 8 should win, but we must be vigilant. The other side will be well-funded in this crucial point in the culture war. The Christian community (along with Mormoms and other faiths that view homosexuality as a sin) needs to get active and vote. 25% of self-professed Christians voting may not be enough this time.

[Raineygoodyear]

I guess they want more fires!

8000 Strikes I guess was not enough...

[padre35]

If the lawyers have to thrash 2,000 years of Western History to make a buck, what is that to them?

That is an outmoded ideal anyway..../s

[originalbuckeye]

I recently read a quote from a Gay Rights advocate where she postulated ‘Respect for the GLBT way of life is being taught in Kindergarten. In 20 years this will be a complete non-issue’. You're right. All the little kids will be indoctrinated by then and the GLBT/MSM/Hollyweird agenda will be accepted as completely normal. Shame.

[TheDon]

Count me in. Among those SS advocates, who we will be telling to pound sand, are the CSC justices who created this extra-constitutional legislation.

Some of them are coming up for re-election in a couple years. They will get the “Rose Bird” treatment.

[TheDon]

Yet another reason to pull your kids out of gov’t schools.

[MississippiMan]

I expect the AFA to get involved. If they don’t, some Californians should urge them to.

MM

[tflabo]

The state Supreme Court refused today to remove a proposed ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot.

The black robed tyrants prefer to thwart the will of the voters after the election like good Stalinists would do! Its their M.O.

[SierraWasp]

Ha Ha Haaaaaaaaa!!! Best, most funniest, even more funnier reply/comment than any other I’ve seen for quite awhile on here!!!

[cookcounty]

"Well, since homos can only recruit, not breed,....

And yet they amazingly manage to keep passing that special gene along from generation to generation.

[Loud Mime]

The number of conservatives in California amazes me; but they have to whisper they are.

Time to get some bumper stickers!

[Libertarianize the GOP]

The court rarely takes up legal challenges to a ballot measure before an election, and could consider the same issue in another lawsuit if the measure passes.

Unfortunately this ruling does not establish a precedent and expect another challenge if Prop 8 passes. The court for now declined to address the substance, likely because before Prop 8 passes the parties involved lacked standing to bring a lawsuit, since they had not yet been harmed.

[Secret Agent Man]

They (including Schwartzzzzzz) just say it’s proof of global warming and inaction of the Bush Admin.

Couldn’t be because they keep trying to legalize perversion (much less keep printing it, filming it, subsidizing it, .....) in good ol’ Cali.

[Boagenes]

I hope the sodomites are ready, because the people are coming to the ballot box on November 9th and they are going to have the final say. And all their perverse, faux marriages will be remembered as nothing but a social hiccup, a cultural aberration - same as their lifestyle.

[Publius6961]

OMG!

Homophobic justices!

[Publius6961]

Some of them are coming up for re-election in a couple years. They will get the “Rose Bird” treatment.

Most of us tend to forget that.
Time to make some "Remember Rose Bird" bumper stickers.

: )

[Publius6961]

Sorry, SW...
Wit is lost on the GLBT community. No sense of humor.

[SunStar]

Uh oh, can the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturn this, or is it safe as is?

Nope. This a state-only issue. The courts state that laws banning gay "marriage" are unconstitutional, so this ballot initiative amends the state constitution.

[goldstategop]

They lost one today. They don't know they can't win on the merits of the issue, folks, so if the California Supremes couldn't save their bacon, they're going to have to lie and scare Californians. The one thing the same sex marriage can't do is talk about how wonderful and life changing redefining the traditional definition of marriage is. They're toast at the ballot box, folks and they know it.

"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

[CedarDave]

I’m lost on this. If the state supreme court already ruled that gay marriage was legal (was it in response to a previous citizen initiative??) how will the current initiative result in a different result if passed?? When challenged by the homosexual community, the result before the court is likely to be the same (i.e. gay marriage legal), isn’t it??

[goldstategop]

They can't change a state constitutional amendment. No after the election, the Gay Lobby is going to the federal courts and try to have it tossed out on equal protection grounds. They're going to let it pass and then they're going to try to get the Nine Circus to nullify the will of the people again... for them.

"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

[goldstategop]

A state supreme court cannot overrule the state constitution. The decision this spring would simply be reversed in that Prop. 22's language would be codified in the state constitution. The Gay Lobby would have to raise a federal constitutional question here to get that struck down.

"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

[SunStar]

If the state supreme court already ruled that gay marriage was legal (was it in response to a previous citizen initiative??)

They did not rule that gay "marriage" was legal! They ruled that banning it was unconstitutional. So this is an attempt to update the constitution itself so that it will be constitutional.

[goldstategop]

Not necessarily. The Gay Lobby is screwed and they'll need to make it a federal issue. As I said, a state supreme court can't overrule the state's highest law, which the state constitution. Its binding on all the branches of government. They may be able to decide if the amendment was ineligible for the ballot in the first place but if it passes by a substantial margin, it will take more than a legal technicality for the California Supremes to throw it out. Today's decision is revealing in that their decision to invalidate Prop. 22 was all about politics and not the principle of fundamental constitutional rights. If those rights are absolute, them they should have indeed removed Prop. 8 from the ballot today. They're the seven hypocrites of California.

"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

[goldstategop]

Well if banning it is constitutional then we can be thankful they made such a stupid, loopy decision this spring. Its as though they wanted to let voters make the decision they were too politically gutless to make themselves.

"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

[Repeal 16-17]

The CSC probably knew that if it prohibited the People from voting on this, the issue would have gotten a whole uglier. The court knew it could only go so far.

[Repeal 16-17]

They're going to let it pass and then they're going to try to get the Nine Circus to nullify the will of the people again... for them.

After that, King Tony (a.k.a., Justice Kennedy) will decide.

[Almondjoy]

This whole thing is so ridiculous and I wish someone in the media would call it what it is.

My understand is that in California homosexuals do have all the rights of married individuals. The only thing the Supreme Court basically said was that it wouldn’t allow seperate but equal... essentially you can’t have civil unions and marriage.

Now if I called green let’s say red people would have a fit and be confused. Why is that a union between someone other than a man and a woman gets to be called marriage.

It’s because marriage is the enemy.. it doesn’t matter how many rights they get.. tey want to move to a society that doesn’t have any committment to anything.

Sadly we have been moving in that direction a long time regardless of homosexual marriage... ie divorce rate of 50+%.

Luckily there are some of us that are trying to be an example to others and I guess that’s all we have to hang onto in times like these.

[DoughtyOne]

Now that was funny. LOL

[fwdude]

I'm less optimistic and predict more like 55/45 passage. There is a lot of homo-money and effort being invested to defeat this. That, along with some good ol’ democratic election fraud.

[fwdude]

“harm” in the liberal playbook means getting your feelings hurt. I think the court might agree.

[fwdude]

all their perverse, faux marriages will be remembered as nothing but a social hiccup, a cultural aberration

Yeah, kind of like Polio before Salk. I can't wait for the tantrums to begin.

[only1percent]

While it was purely a matter for the State Supreme Court to find a right to gay marriage in the state Constitution, it is not necessarily a purely state matter as to whether or not that right, once found, can be removed.

In Roemer vs. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas the U.S. Supreme Court held, in different contexts, that political efforts targeting gays and lesbians are inherently suspect. If the amendment passes in November, a (Federal) extension of Roemer and Lawrence to nullify its passage will doubtless be one of the strategies undertaken by the pro-gay-marriage side.