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

Skip to comments.

Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 11/5/8 | John Wildermuth, Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writers

Posted on 11/05/2008 1:46:32 PM PST by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO -- After a heated, divisive campaign fueled by a record $73 million of spending, California voters have approved Proposition 8, which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents promptly filed suit to try to block the measure from taking effect.

With 96 percent of the vote counted, Prop. 8 was winning by a decisive 400,000-vote margin, 52.2 percent to 47.8 percent. It piled up huge margins in the Central Valley and carried some Democratic strongholds such as Los Angeles County. The measure lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

As the vote counting continued this morning, opponents of Prop. 8 filed a lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court - whose May 15 ruling legalized same-sex marriage - asking the justices to overturn the measure.

The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways - taking important rights away from a minority group - that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The same groups asked the court before the election to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot on those grounds. The justices refused, but left the door open for a post-election challenge.

"A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities," said Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU lawyer. "Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiative such revisions."

The suit was filed on behalf of six unmarried same-sex couples and the gay rights group Equality California.

Passage of Prop. 8 leaves more than just the future of same-sex marriage up in the air. Questions have...been raised about whether...

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


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: activistjudge; anytwosomenewsom; casupremecourt; homosexualagenda; playinghouse; prop8; sanfranciscovalues; sodomandgomorrah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
Whether you like it or not:

Mayor Gavin Newsom speaks at the "No on 8" party at the Westin St. Francis on Tuesday.

1 posted on 11/05/2008 1:46:33 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The vote will be overturned by the 0bama Supreme Ministry of Justice.


2 posted on 11/05/2008 1:48:57 PM PST by Carl LaFong (Building Code Under Fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

And he’s planning to run for Guv. Remember that smirk!


3 posted on 11/05/2008 1:49:12 PM PST by Scothia ( When something important is going on, silence is a lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Everytime the voters in CA pass a prop - the ACLU takes it to court the next day and it ends up being overturned.

RightWingIt.com

4 posted on 11/05/2008 1:52:08 PM PST by GaryLee1990 (www.RightWingIt.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

California has won a reprieve—for now.


5 posted on 11/05/2008 1:53:11 PM PST by pray4liberty (VOTE FOR LIFE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The liberals are gonna get to the right to gay marriage, even if they have to trample the Constitution and the American people along the way. Why go through all that inconvenient “voting” nonsense or listen to that nonsense about the “legislature making the laws” when they can just go through the courts and leave it up to someone who was never elected and can make any decision he wants? They obviously know what’s best for us. Who needs democracy anyway?


6 posted on 11/05/2008 1:53:26 PM PST by NavySon (The White House next year: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I could see this lawsuit coming. Why vote on such proposals if they are going to be blocked by some liberal judge?


7 posted on 11/05/2008 1:54:32 PM PST by chippewaman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GaryLee1990

...this really isn’t about marriage....it’s about homos thinking they can make us approve of them.


8 posted on 11/05/2008 1:54:46 PM PST by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The NO side has no respect for the democratic process or for the will of the majority of Californians who have spoken on the issue and affirmed marriage means a union of a man and a woman.

"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

9 posted on 11/05/2008 1:56:40 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
The measure takes effect immediately. I don't see how the California Supreme Court can invalidate a constitutional amendment. Similar amendments have been adopted in 29 other states.

"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

10 posted on 11/05/2008 1:58:45 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Just let the poxy vermin try.


11 posted on 11/05/2008 1:58:51 PM PST by farmer18th (George Will: Conservative, as long as the Newsweek People Don't make Fun of Me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
taking important rights away from a minority group

Logic-chopping rubbish. Homosexuals have exactly the same marriage rights as anybody else. Any male homosexual can marry any female homosexual. What they want is SPECIAL RIGHTS for their minority, and only their minority.

But in fact "gay marriage" is all about destroying civilization, nothing less.

12 posted on 11/05/2008 1:59:44 PM PST by Argus (Obama: All turban and no goats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
What's fascinating about this is the Queerly Beloved, as one of their arguments, said if Prop. 8 passed there would soon be a follow-up to ban interracial marriage.

.....and California blacks voted 70 percent FOR it.

13 posted on 11/05/2008 2:00:44 PM PST by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus
But in fact "gay marriage" is all about destroying civilization, nothing less.

Right square on the head. Everything the left does has the result and the intent of destroying the traditional family.

14 posted on 11/05/2008 2:02:08 PM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, and Thuggery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
It piled up huge margins in the Central Valley

Yay Fresno!

15 posted on 11/05/2008 2:04:52 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Don't blame me, I voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

It just looks like the only way to shut the ACLU and its fellow travelers up is to add a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That Proposition 8 passed fair and square through the democratic process means nothing to them.


16 posted on 11/05/2008 2:05:50 PM PST by rrstar96 (Strength and Honor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS

It’s not about marriage... it’s about teaching homosexuality in schools and it’s also about ADOPTION.


17 posted on 11/05/2008 2:06:02 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Don't blame me, I voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lsucat; TeĆ³filo; NYer; Salvation; Nihil Obstat; mileschristi; bornacatholic; Mrs. Don-o; narses; ..

Faith of Our Fathers ping


18 posted on 11/05/2008 2:07:04 PM PST by rrstar96 (Strength and Honor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
Yep. Black people rejected the invidious and offensive comparison. Two gays can get married - as long they are of the opposite sex, like any one else. There is no discrimination here.

"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

19 posted on 11/05/2008 2:07:16 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

As usual they will stall and wait for a sympathetic Court. Or, as with “English Only”...refuse to abide.


20 posted on 11/05/2008 2:08:06 PM PST by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GaryLee1990

As long as it doesn’t jive with the ACLU agenda.


21 posted on 11/05/2008 2:08:06 PM PST by rrstar96 (Strength and Honor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Here come da judge!


22 posted on 11/05/2008 2:08:34 PM PST by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop; Argus

Thank you for making the argument I’ve been making! Any eligible man can marry any eligible woman. Everyone has the same restrictions (age, marital status, not a close relative of the spouse, etc.). These are special, invented “rights.”


23 posted on 11/05/2008 2:09:25 PM PST by TenthAmendmentChampion (Don't blame me, I voted for John McCain and Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta

Now that’s ridiculous. This proposition was simply about keeping the definition of marriage between a man and woman the same. Nothing else.

Certainly nothing to do with race. I mean, if that was the case, why did 70% of blacks vote for it?


24 posted on 11/05/2008 2:09:31 PM PST by Simmy2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I don't see how the California Supreme Court can invalidate a constitutional amendment.

They will simply DO it. The California state bureaucracy (the public masters) will spring into action immediately and issue licenses and other state documents. Jerry Moonbeam Brown will refuse to defend the amendment or appeal to SCOTUS. Private groups will have to organize and finance the appeal, SCOTUS will decide.

25 posted on 11/05/2008 2:11:22 PM PST by Navy Patriot (The beauty of conservatism, Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
asking the justices to overturn the measure.

How can a referendum be overturned by a court? Isn't that the whole point? Doesn't it carry the de facto weight of an amendment? Shouldn't state authorities refuse to obey any ruling regarding a referendum, citing separation of powers?

26 posted on 11/05/2008 2:12:45 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Here’s my question...

If Proposition 8 is a state constitutional change, making same sex marriage illegal under the CA constitution, wouldn’t that bind the state supreme court’s “hands” on the matter?

It seems to me that the CA state supreme court can rule something constitutional or unconstitutional: That’s it. Well, if this is an amendment to the state constitution, then it’s constitutional by definition.

It’s sort of like the SCOTUS ruling that free speech is unconstitutional... Oops... Wait a minute, been there, done that with McCain/Feingold.

Mark


27 posted on 11/05/2008 2:16:16 PM PST by MarkL (Al Gore: The Greenhouse Gasbag! (heard on Bob Brinker's Money Talk))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion

And making more homosexuals.

The more there are the less they can be denied.

[And don’t tell me it can’t be done because they are borrrnnn that way. A few may be but the majority choose. No, YOU go research it. ]


28 posted on 11/05/2008 2:19:10 PM PST by Adder (typical basicly decent bitter white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Simmy2.5
Of course it's ridiculous.

But clearly they must have known how the blacks felt about it and so tried to stir up a little race hatred with them and make it a black vs. white issue.

29 posted on 11/05/2008 2:21:40 PM PST by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: All

Gay marriage would be a slap in the face to God, that is what liberals want to do, take God from society, THAT is what is making me mad. GOD created marriage and it was only between a man and a woman. End of story. Liberals are a growing fungus in society.


30 posted on 11/05/2008 2:22:22 PM PST by LegalEagle61 (If you are going to burn our flag, please make sure you are wearing it when you do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TenthAmendmentChampion
In the end, homosexuals/lesbians have adopted a welfare mentality like so many others in the Democratic Party. They feel they are "entitled" to the legal benefits of true marriage.
31 posted on 11/05/2008 2:23:00 PM PST by rrstar96 (Strength and Honor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Argus
Homosexuals have exactly the same marriage rights as anybody else. Any male homosexual can marry any female homosexual.

Absolutely right. I had a conversation with my wife urging her to vote for just such an amendment here in Florida and for basically this very reason. This argument that a definition of marriage is not equally applied if it is specific to a man and a woman is certainly ridiculous. Just consider that we also define what a doctor is, or an airplane pilot, and nobody has any problem with all the people excluded in these definitions. People like the stupid, lazy, poor who can't afford to go to classes, retarded people, the insane, and so on. My feeling is if it is discriminatory to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, then I have the right to go to work as a heart surgeon tomorrow.

32 posted on 11/05/2008 2:23:08 PM PST by cothrige (Ego vero Evangelio non crederem, ni si me catholicae Ecclesiae commoveret auctoritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

the argument is that this is a “fundamental right” and only the legislature can put that on the ballot.

If this was the case, then NOTHING would ever get on the ballot.


33 posted on 11/05/2008 2:23:32 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

They have no standing to go to SCOTUS. Gays are not a protected class, and regulation of marriage is one of the enumerated state powers under the Constitution.

I have to ask - did a single pro gay marriage ballot initiative pass last night?


34 posted on 11/05/2008 2:27:36 PM PST by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

If the CASU usurps the will of the people on this, there should be no less than a revolution! Californian’s do not let them stop you under ANY circumstances!


35 posted on 11/05/2008 2:31:45 PM PST by sirchtruth (Vote Conservative Repuplican!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GaryLee1990

The problem is that the left uses our civil behavior against us. This happens all the time. The left knows we don’t riot and take up weaponry against them. If the CA Supreme Court and the legislature continue to overturn the will of the people that is tyranny, plain and simple.


36 posted on 11/05/2008 2:31:51 PM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carl LaFong

We should sue about the Presidential election since apparently the voice of the people isn’t enough for liberals.


37 posted on 11/05/2008 2:32:16 PM PST by Skenderbej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NavySon

It’s tyranny over the people. I wish people would see it for what it is.


38 posted on 11/05/2008 2:33:11 PM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chippewaman

They need to be brought and voted on for exactly the reason we’re seeing: tyranny.


39 posted on 11/05/2008 2:35:23 PM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: montag813

It IS an amendment to the California Constitution. The California Supreme clowns cannot say it’s unconstitutional when it AMENDS that document. The other arguments about it were demolished PRIOR TO the election when a lawsuit against it was dismissed.


40 posted on 11/05/2008 2:35:56 PM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth

the CASU is taking the position that sexual behavior is an immutable trait.

Preference equals protected class.
(do people who have sex with fish count too? an intentional absurdity)


41 posted on 11/05/2008 2:36:59 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

How can a Constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Wouldn’t that, logically speaking, but calling the Constitution unconstitutional?

Lib thinking is, indeed, a disease.


42 posted on 11/05/2008 2:44:05 PM PST by MissouriConservative (If My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and pray...2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal
They have no standing to go to SCOTUS.

Which side? I agree, Gays are not a protected class, they have no standing.

However, if CASC tosses a CA Constitutional Amendment on method of adoption, the peoples civil rights may have been infringed by the CASC.

That may give standing. SCOTUS would decide standing, option to review, and result, IF they wish.

Or am I wrong? Is SCOTUS unable to review unconstitutional actions by CA judges, even CASC?

43 posted on 11/05/2008 2:46:19 PM PST by Navy Patriot (The beauty of conservatism, Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative
“How can a Constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Wouldn’t that, logically speaking, but calling the Constitution unconstitutional?”

I don't think this kind of question is allowed. Anymore.

44 posted on 11/05/2008 2:46:39 PM PST by A knight without armor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

This is the real underlying goal of the Gay Lobby. They want to obtain protected class status under the US Constitution as their ultimate goal. If they are afforded that level of protection ever, you would then need to apply Strict Scrutiny to any laws that would have the impact of “discriminating” against gays. Imagine a church trying to refuse to marry gays then! They would most certainly lose their tax exempt status. Gays want to argue that they do not want to force anyone to marry them but they simply want the right. The problem is that if you take their arguments to their natural conclusion you will eventually find yourself at the doorstep of forcing churches to marry them anyway. I’m sorry, but I do not see being gay as a protected class like race.


45 posted on 11/05/2008 2:50:01 PM PST by The Unknown Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

SCOTUS can only review federal questions. I do not see anything in this that is a federal question. They cannot tell California how to amend their own constitution.


46 posted on 11/05/2008 2:55:57 PM PST by Right Cal Gal (Abraham Lincoln would have let Berkeley leave the Union without a fight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: GaryLee1990
Everytime the voters in CA pass a prop - the ACLU takes it to court the next day and it ends up being overturned.
They would probably try to consolidate the challenge along with legal challenges against the measures passed in Florida and Arizona.
47 posted on 11/05/2008 2:58:06 PM PST by dbz77 (uuote>Leftists will have the power to possibly end all future U.S. elections as well as possibly mak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Right Cal Gal
SCOTUS can only review federal questions. I do not see anything in this that is a federal question. They cannot tell California how to amend their own constitution.
They can invalidate portions of the constitution that conflict with federal statute or the U.S. Constitution. A state constitutional amendment legalizing bigamy would be invalid due to conflict with federal anti-bigamy statutes, for example.
48 posted on 11/05/2008 3:00:41 PM PST by dbz77 (uuote>Leftists will have the power to possibly end all future U.S. elections as well as possibly mak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: cothrige

I had to convince my wife about “gay marriage” too. She has a good heart and simply looked at it as a way to make our homosexual friends happy. I needed to show her that the backers of “gay marriage” don’t give a damn about homosexuals’ happiness. Destroying the traditional definition/valuation of marriage is simply the camel’s nose under the tent, just one of the opening wedges of the Gramscian Marxist project of dismantling bourgeois civilization, one brick at a time (to mix my metaphors to the point of meltdown). She finally got it.


49 posted on 11/05/2008 3:01:01 PM PST by Argus (Stuff Compassionate and Maverick - just try plain old CONSERVATISM again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

they are saying the PROCEDURE was unconstitutional.

Because it is a fundamental right (in the eyes of the CASU) then the LEGSILATURE should have been the ONLY body allowed to put this referendum to the people.

ONLY the elected officials are allowed to put ballot questions before those who elected them.

At some point it does become an exercise in absurdity. The CASU has to decide whether the referendum process has ANY validity.


50 posted on 11/05/2008 3:03:35 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 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