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

Skip to comments.

California Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage ban nears (Prop 8 ruling)
San Jose Mercury News ^ | 20 May 2009 | Howard Mintz

Posted on 05/21/2009 11:03:40 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture

California Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage ban nears

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistjudges; calsupremecourt; gaymarriage; gaystapo; gaystapotactics; hatecrimes; homosexualagenda; judicialtyranny; lavendermafia; marriage; prop8; proposition8; samesexmarriage; traditionalmarriage; willofthepeople
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 next last

1 posted on 05/21/2009 11:03:40 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

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....


2 posted on 05/21/2009 11:05:38 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Thanks for the reminder — that came up quickly.
3 posted on 05/21/2009 11:05:40 AM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


4 posted on 05/21/2009 11:06:32 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

The SCOC will overturn a properly approved referendum. The question remains, will the “majority” make the appropriate response by demanding their impeachment?


5 posted on 05/21/2009 11:07:03 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (FreepMail me if you want on the Bourbon ping list!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

What sort of dirt does Perez Hilton and the Lavender Mafia have on the justices?


6 posted on 05/21/2009 11:07:13 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (If you like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, the IRS, and the Post Office, you'll love govt Health Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
The gay lobby and Moonbeam Brown (the AG) think this is an issue too important for the voters to decide. That is why the appealed Prop 8.

California is unravelling fast.

7 posted on 05/21/2009 11:07:20 AM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

ASk Rose Bird what she thinks.


8 posted on 05/21/2009 11:07:56 AM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

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.


9 posted on 05/21/2009 11:08:45 AM PDT by Argus (We've gone downtown to Clown Town, and that's where we'll be living from now on..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter

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.


10 posted on 05/21/2009 11:09:21 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

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.


11 posted on 05/21/2009 11:10:29 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus

LOL just like the libs screamed about a stem-cell ban!


12 posted on 05/21/2009 11:11:05 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist ("President Obama, your agenda is not new, it's not change, and it's not hope" - Rush Limbaugh 02/28)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

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?


13 posted on 05/21/2009 11:12:51 AM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Peons, your betters are meeting together to decide your fate.


14 posted on 05/21/2009 11:15:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Independent Party - 'partisans only for the truth' - www.AIPNEWS.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Spot on! The people will need to stand up once more and make it clear what they want.


15 posted on 05/21/2009 11:18:00 AM PDT by devistate one four (Back by popular demand: America love or leave it (GTFOOMC) TET68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
I think they'll uphold Prop 8 but if not, we'll see some extended fireworks.

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.

16 posted on 05/21/2009 11:18:49 AM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
We must respect the ruling of our mighty oligarchs. We must never come under the illusion of ancient notions like "of the people, by the people, for the people."

< /sarcasm >

17 posted on 05/21/2009 11:19:00 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent

I don’t follow your implication.


18 posted on 05/21/2009 11:20:11 AM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (FreepMail me if you want on the Bourbon ping list!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pfflier

You are right.

They go morally bankrupt first, then financially bankrupt. It is rather evident now. What else is new.


19 posted on 05/21/2009 11:20:16 AM PDT by m4629
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
the voter-approved ballot

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?

20 posted on 05/21/2009 11:21:57 AM PDT by Mind Freed ("Every man has the right to be a fool 5 minutes a day. Wisdom is not exceeding the limit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

Self-government. What a quaint notion. *sniff*


21 posted on 05/21/2009 11:22:23 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Independent Party - 'partisans only for the truth' - www.AIPNEWS.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Not so sure on the pseudo-marriages that were performed before passage of Prop 8.

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

22 posted on 05/21/2009 11:22:53 AM PDT by m4629
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mind Freed
"A Republic... if you can keep it."

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.

23 posted on 05/21/2009 11:24:30 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: m4629

Ick. I’d bet comsummation never enters the ruling.


24 posted on 05/21/2009 11:27:08 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

scary, courts are king


25 posted on 05/21/2009 11:27:36 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

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.


26 posted on 05/21/2009 11:30:23 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
We must respect the ruling of our mighty oligarchs. We must never come under the illusion of ancient notions like "of the people, by the people, for the people."

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.

27 posted on 05/21/2009 11:31:08 AM PDT by stripes1776 ("That if gold rust, what shall iron do?" --Chaucer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Argus
That's right. To wit:

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.

28 posted on 05/21/2009 11:32:04 AM PDT by Mr Ducklips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture
Ick. I’d bet comsummation never enters the ruling.

Ah, then it would be grounds for legal challenge wouldn't it? :-D

29 posted on 05/21/2009 11:33:35 AM PDT by m4629
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: m4629
It's a North-South issue there. For the most part Southern California tends more conservative but from Santa Barbara north, it is a raging cauldron of liberal B.S.

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.

30 posted on 05/21/2009 11:39:00 AM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

We believe that allowing people to vote is unConstitutional....


31 posted on 05/21/2009 11:43:26 AM PDT by Tzimisce (http://groups.myspace.com/nailthemessiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent

No way man, is that old bat still alive?


32 posted on 05/21/2009 11:49:00 AM PDT by Joe Boucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tzimisce
That's pretty much what they'd be saying because the law allows the state Constitution to be amended by referendum. It does not say what the referendum can be.
33 posted on 05/21/2009 11:50:45 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: stripes1776
Agreed.

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.

34 posted on 05/21/2009 11:59:16 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher
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?

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.

35 posted on 05/21/2009 12:01:07 PM PDT by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pfflier
It's a North-South issue there. For the most part Southern California tends more conservative but from Santa Barbara north, it is a raging cauldron of liberal B.S.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. Many people make the mistake of thinking that the only thing north of LA is San Francisco. Pretty much all of northern California except for San Francisco and the surrounding areas and, recently, Sacramento, is majority conservative. That's a lot of counties.
36 posted on 05/21/2009 12:08:10 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: pfflier
It's a North-South issue there.

Nope, it's an East-West issue. The eastern parts of CA are far more conservative than the coastal parts.

37 posted on 05/21/2009 12:09:13 PM PDT by rivercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

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).


38 posted on 05/21/2009 12:15:52 PM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

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


39 posted on 05/21/2009 12:22:57 PM PDT by hoosier hick ((I'm back to..) Note to RINOs: We need a choice, not an echo. (Barry Goldwater))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

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.


40 posted on 05/21/2009 12:38:09 PM PDT by skyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skyman
True. The influence of the California Teachers' Union, in conjunction with our media, to indoctrinate and corrupt/pervert our children.
41 posted on 05/21/2009 12:52:18 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

Rose Bird was turned out over her decisions.


42 posted on 05/21/2009 1:32:03 PM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rivercat; fr_freak

I stand corrected. That’s what moving from Lompoc to San Diego will to for you.


43 posted on 05/21/2009 2:22:49 PM PDT by pfflier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

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.


44 posted on 05/21/2009 7:20:50 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Argus
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.

You've pretty much encapsulated this issue very well. Bears repeating.

45 posted on 05/21/2009 7:29:31 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
...both sides are currently working on their appeals to the Apellate Courts. The losing side will appeal. This will not end with the CSC.

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.

46 posted on 05/21/2009 7:39:28 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
...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...

If the homos lose, I am certain they will find a way to get it before the 9th Circus.

47 posted on 05/21/2009 7:50:12 PM PDT by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
Possibly, but I don't think it's likely.
48 posted on 05/21/2009 7:57:19 PM PDT by fwdude ("...a 'centrist' ... has few principles - and those are negotiable." - Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

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.


49 posted on 05/21/2009 8:01:40 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

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.


50 posted on 05/21/2009 8:04:51 PM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-53 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