California Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage ban nears (Prop 8 ruling)

San Jose Mercury News ^ | 20 May 2009 | Howard Mintz

[EternalVigilance]

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

[m4629]

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

[CounterCounterCulture]

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?

"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.

[CounterCounterCulture]

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

[yldstrk]

scary, courts are king

[MrB]

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.

[stripes1776]

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.

[Mr Ducklips]

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.

[m4629]

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

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

[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.

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.

[Tzimisce]

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

[Joe Boucher]

No way man, is that old bat still alive?

[massgopguy]

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.

[CounterCounterCulture]

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.

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.

[jeffc]

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.

[fr_freak]

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.

[rivercat]

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.

[massmike]

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).

[hoosier hick]

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

[skyman]

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.