Posted on 05/21/2009 11:03:40 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
The clock is ticking down on the California Supreme Court's imminent decision on whether to uphold Proposition 8, the voter-approved ballot measure restoring the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
Based on regulations that require the justices to rule within 90 days of oral arguments in a case, the Supreme Court's decision in the legal challenge to Proposition 8 now will fall on one of three remaining days: Tuesday or next Thursday, or June 1. The high court normally only rules on Mondays and Thursdays, but will issue rulings next Tuesday because of the Memorial Day holiday Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
Gee, I am on pins and needles waiting for what lame excuse the Californian Supreme Court will use to overturn the will of the people once again. We don’t need no stinking votes or legislature for that matter....
The SCOC will overturn a properly approved referendum. The question remains, will the “majority” make the appropriate response by demanding their impeachment?
What sort of dirt does Perez Hilton and the Lavender Mafia have on the justices?
California is unravelling fast.
ASk Rose Bird what she thinks.
For the umpteenth friggin’ time -
Proposition 8 DOES NOT BAN ANYTHING. It simply affirms what was settled custom and law in California - and everywhere else on planet Earth since the dawn of history - that marriage is an exclusively heterosexual thang.
The liberals find some judge somewhere to uphold some wacky new “civil right” for five minutes before it’s overturned, and then that five minute right becomes set in stone for all time, and any attempt to restore the sane status quo ante becomes a “ban” or some other kind of oppression. It’s a neat, albeit blatantly obvious and dishonest, tactic.
Feels like slower than molasses to me. I’ve been so eager for a ruling since I watched the oral arguments.
Cautiously optimistic on Prop 8. Not so sure on the pseudo-marriages that were performed before passage of Prop 8.
Anybody want to take any bets on what the “men in black” will rule?
I say they’re nothing less than political animals for whom the law and the California Constitution are totally irrelevant. They are weighing their re-election chances - - the votes of normal, decent, traditional American families (who haven’t yet escaped California) versus the votes and significant financial support of the goofball, hate-America, love-perversion lefties with the big mouths.
Good luck with all that, men in black.
LOL just like the libs screamed about a stem-cell ban!
What I don’t understand is, the CA Supremes already ruled that prop 8 could go forward. If it was not legit than why was it allowed to go on the ballot in the first place?
Peons, your betters are meeting together to decide your fate.
Spot on! The people will need to stand up once more and make it clear what they want.
I'm not so sure on invalidating those so called marriages either. As I see it, the same-sex marriages were invalid to start with and allowing same-sex marriages to occur is a huge mess they created themselves. We shall soon see how or if they're capable of cleaning up their own mess.
< /sarcasm >
I don’t follow your implication.
You are right.
They go morally bankrupt first, then financially bankrupt. It is rather evident now. What else is new.
Doesn't that say enough? The majority wants it... Isn't that how our governments are supposed to work. What the hell is going on?
Self-government. What a quaint notion. *sniff*
The clowns have to explain/define just HOW the queers consummate their "marriage", on the basis that if a marriage was never consummated, then it never existed :-D
The oligarchs are pressing hard to remove any last trace of our Republic, and they'll be more than happy to do it with the gaystapo. This is pretty much our last line in the sand in California.
Ick. I’d bet comsummation never enters the ruling.
scary, courts are king
That will have to be addressed after RW II...
Article 3 will have to include some language to the effect that courts may not overturn laws nor go beyond the laws and constitution as written.
Also, that the courts are not to be the final arbiter of law, but state legislatures withhold that power.
We are a nation governed by laws. But when the courts try to make law from the bench, then we are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation of whims when judges usurp the duties of the legislature. Is that something along the lines of what you mean?
As for the phrase "of the people, by the people, and for the people", that was written and spoken by a big government Republican, Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps he took his first name too seriously and thought he was the father of a sacred race.
Proposition 8 was a ballot proposition in California that added the following text to Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution: Only marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California.
Ah, then it would be grounds for legal challenge wouldn't it? :-D
I hope they follow through on the attempt to split the state and that Northern California succeeds. They have effectively departed the US morally and their idea of mainstream politics is Boxer and Pelosi although I'm sure they would welcome Waxman from the peoples republic of Santa Monica.
We believe that allowing people to vote is unConstitutional....
No way man, is that old bat still alive?
We are a nation of checks and balances, and judges are beholden to the constitution and rule in conjunction with the constitution, not granted the power to usurp the constitution. When they usurp, that makes them oligarchs and the people are just mere subjects.
A very astute observation. The same happened in Florida, but the opponents still want to challenge it.
Whatever happens in CA, both sides are currently working on their appeals to the Apellate Courts. The losing side will appeal. This will not end with the CSC.
Nope, it's an East-West issue. The eastern parts of CA are far more conservative than the coastal parts.
Well at least Califorians GOT a chance to vote on this......TWICE! That’s something that those of us in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts NEVER got!(otherwise,we would have tossed out gay “marriage”,too).
California’s state constitution is REALLY broken. It needs to be completely re-written. Maybe someone can explain to me how the state supreme court can get involved in an amendment to the constitution. I can see how they can overturn a law, but not a constitutional amendment. Only federal court should have jurisdiction. My understanding of the US constitution is that this is one of the checks and balances. Amending the constitution allows the states to super-cede the Supreme Court and they cannot overturn it. They are sworn to uphold it— even if they disagree.
hh
Even if it is upheld by the state supreme court, the pro gays are gathering signatures to put this on the ballot in 2010. That battle will even be uglier than the fight for prop 8.
They are relentless and little by little they will get there way as oppostion to gay marriage decreases as more young people get older and vote.
Rose Bird was turned out over her decisions.
I stand corrected. That’s what moving from Lompoc to San Diego will to for you.
I always wonder about that also. Because proposed ballot initiatives are reviewed and have to go through a process to be approved to gather signatures. Then, the signatures have to be reviewed to ensure that enough valid signatures are on the petitions. Part of the vetting process is that a proposed initiative has to be legal in the first place. For example, you couldn’t have a ballot initiative to take away women’s right to vote, because that would conflict with established federal law and the constitution.
So, clearly, a determination was made that it was legal for the voters of California to vote on the definition of marriage. The gay activists only started saying it was an illegal improper subject to vote on after Proposition 8 was approved.
The liberals find some judge somewhere to uphold some wacky new “civil right” for five minutes before it’s overturned, and then that five minute right becomes set in stone for all time, and any attempt to restore the sane status quo ante becomes a “ban” or some other kind of oppression. It’s a neat, albeit blatantly obvious and dishonest, tactic.
You've pretty much encapsulated this issue very well. Bears repeating.
I've heard otherwise. From the standpoint of the state, there is no higher appellate court than the CSC, unless someone can prove a violation of the U.S. Constitution. For all practical purposes, most federal-level courts are extremely reluctant to wade into a state fray such as this. It's the end of the line - both fortunately and unfortunately.
If the homos lose, I am certain they will find a way to get it before the 9th Circus.
I think the vote on the 20th against all the props will decide this issue. The justices will be looking at the fact they will probably get their a**es handed to them by the people if they strike down an initiative that they pre-approved before it went on the ballot. They will uphold the initiative but will let the past marriages stand, IMO.
You got that right. The northeastern counties in particular are conservative and on the coast you have Del Norte county as conservative as they get.
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.