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 previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
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]

To: MissouriConservative
Wouldn’t that, logically speaking, but calling the Constitution unconstitutional?

Exactly, and done by legal trickery.

CA has three special CA Constitutional provisions; referendum, recall and initiative. They are specifically for use when the CA government refuses to execute the will of the people. They specifically bypass the entire government in enacting law or Constitutional Amendments.

Prop 8 Constitutional Amendment was passed by initiative, direct democracy bypassing all CA govt. exactly as the empowering initiative process specifically allowed.

The ACLU says the initiative must have been submitted and passed by the legislature BEFORE being submitted to the electorate. Obviously exactly opposing the reason that the initiative power was placed in the CA Constitution for, so obviously a frivolous claim.

The all queer, all the time CASC might just pull out of some "penumbra" that "obviously that was SUSPOSED to be in there, but because someone forgot to write it in, we will, now."

Bingo the Constitutional Amendment is "unconstitutional", and who can make CASC do the right thing? Right, only SCOTUS, if they wish.

51 posted on 11/05/2008 3:07:19 PM PST by Navy Patriot (The beauty of conservatism, Sarah Palin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

BKmark for later thanks


52 posted on 11/05/2008 3:12:18 PM PST by happinesswithoutpeace (You are receiving this broadcast as a dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
No. The initiative, referendum and recall are guaranteed rights. Back in 2003, a federal court in California sought to thwart California voters from recalling Gray Davis on "equal protection" grounds. People were so outraged at this moronic usurpation of democratic government that even the wackadoo Nine Circus had to reverse them. The ACLU initiated that and they're initiating this lawsuit over same sex marriage. The end result is to deny the people their final say over the government and transfer it to a bunch of unelected judges. Since the Left does not like it when people seek to vote against them, they want to reverse what they are doing to something, they, the elite - like.

"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

53 posted on 11/05/2008 3:57:02 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
which would change the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents promptly filed suit to try to block the measure from taking effect

How the F*** do you declare a constitutional amendment "unconstitutional (the only measure by which they could "sue to block it"?

54 posted on 11/05/2008 4:28:38 PM PST by weegee (Global Warming Change? Fight Global Socialist CHANGE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Okay, he’s got a ring on his left hand; who’s he married to?


55 posted on 11/05/2008 4:35:33 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

WRONG

Bill Ayers was an admitted Communist buttboy. They engaged in sex positive bisexuality because they wanted to smash the institution of marriage.

No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen

He also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.

It isn't about being accepted. It is about subverting the culture.

56 posted on 11/05/2008 4:39:52 PM PST by weegee (Global Warming Change? Fight Global Socialist CHANGE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
From article: The measure lost in every Bay Area county but Solano.

Just in case ANYBODY was wonderin....Vallejo, the town declaring bankruptcy? Is in Solano County.

57 posted on 11/05/2008 4:39:56 PM PST by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

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

Tell me about it. What’s the difference between a Supreme Court justice and an absolute monarch? Nothing! Neither one is elected. Both serve for life. Both have the power to change whatever laws they want and subject anyone to their personal desires. Both have barely any limit on what they can do. The Supreme Court can strike down any law they want and make new ones based on their opinions alone, yet there isn’t any part of the government that can strike down the Supreme Court’s decisions. This completely ignores the system of checks and balances the Founding Fathers wanted us to have. I say we pass a Constitutional amendment to limit the Supreme Court’s power. That’s the only thing I can think of to end this glorified oligarchy.


58 posted on 11/05/2008 5:24:57 PM PST by NavySon ("Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: NavySon
Who needs democracy anyway?

We're losing it because we refuse to do whatever is necessary to keep it. What is going to be the final straw? Conservatives being ordered by judges to concentration camps?

59 posted on 11/05/2008 9:21:55 PM PST by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 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