Skip to comments.Court expected to uphold Prop. 8 same-sex marriage ban [Calif]
Posted on 05/22/2009 10:37:31 PM PDT by South40
Experts say Proposition 8 is likely to be upheld Tuesday, but gay married couples will not lose their nuptial status.
Odds are that gay marriage will continue to be banned in the state except for the 18,000 gay couples that tied the knot before voters approved Proposition 8 in November, according to legal experts anticipating the state Supreme Court's upcoming ruling Tuesday.
But the next ballot measure you see on the issue will seek to reverse the ban possibly as early as next year.
Katherine Darmer, a Chapman University law professor and gay-marriage activist, is among the numerous legal experts who watched the March arguments and came away with the impression that the court would uphold the ban.
Darmer and others came to that conclusion, in part, because of the considerable time justices spent on what should be done with those 18,000 couples if the court gave the ban its blessing. But Darmer said that line of questioning also indicated that judges would be reluctant to void existing marriages.
"Additionally, there's a presumption against retroactive application," said Darmer, a board member of the Orange County Equality Coalition which is fighting to legalize gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
The decision will not stop the arguements
Guess they'll just keep putting it up elestion after election until they get their way.
Will gays go wild in the streets? Film at 11
And the Tolerance Gestapo will go in to action...
Of course they will. 2000's Proposition 22 was adopted by a vote of 61.4% to 38%. Eight years later with Proposition 8, the vote was 52.47% in favor and 47.53% opposed. The gay mafia pushes on because the numbers tell them they will eventually win.
Well, until things get to the bleeding-point. Then the stupid will die off as it’s “survival of the fittest”.
Then again, their militant activism may push the numbers back into the sixty percent range, especially if they propose it sooner rather than later.
“Guess they’ll just keep putting it up elestion after election until they get their way.”
Well then we will just have to just do the same thing.
If they overturned Prop 8 I would be afraid they would do it to other props like the anti-tax ones just approved.
I guess they put word out ahead of time to prepare to riots by the brownshirts when they uphold 8.
Will this be enough for San Francisco to brake away from the rest of California?
I wouldnt say that considering this:
Possibly, but I believe there exists a "pendulum effect," otherwise you would never have seen a Republican comeback after a Democratic takeover in government. But think about the Prop 8 numbers being so marginal. At the time of the election, the Gaystapo had possession of the ball - they had managed to have homo-"marriage" in place, creating the effect of "taking away rights" if the proposition won; they had numerous celebrities crowing about this issue in their favor; had the CA attorney general, who was SUPPOSED to be defending Prop 8 but was in their corner; had the wording of the proposition changed to a derogative connotation; and had 18,000 "marriages" already in place, giving them a wedge to push the issue. By all accounts, this thing should have been a blowout for the homo-nazis, so I think the win for us was impressive.
IMO, their proposed ballot amendment to dump Prop 8 will probably result in a reversion to the 61% support for traditional marriage, if not higher.
Don't count on the National Guard being called. Look who's in charge. If they are called, they won't be allowed bullets, mark my word.
I do believe there will be absolutely nasty retaliation by the homo-fascists, similar to the 60's Democratic convention debacle. This is a given, and I hope the American people have the eyes to see what raving lunatics and animals the people who push homo-"marriage" really are.
And the libs were crawling out of the woodwork to elect the first marxist President. I think anti-prop 8 will go down in flames.
Yes, I forgot about that advantage. How many brain-dead libs will vote in the mid-term election?
I've been saying this exact same thing(tooting my own horn)and I hope it is true. I think it is because they will have a very difficult time explaining how they can declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional, especially one they cleared to be put on the ballot. I don't care if they allow the previous "marriages" to stand because the breakup rate among homos is so high that most of the phony marriages will be gone in a few years with no new ones to replace them.
The gays(hate that word)will, of course, raise he** about it but too bad for them. They hurt their cause immeasurably with their over the top protests after Prop 8 passed.
I DO care, because then you will have the Constitutional perversion: Only the marriage of a man and a woman is recognized in this state and then having the "marriage" of something other than a man and a woman being recognized. Yes, these relationships break up much sooner, except for many lesbians, who are often so awfully homely or grotesque no one else would have them.
The "marriages" that do exist will be leveraged heavily by the gaystapo legal groups who will push ever button and pull every lever in an attempt to show that these existences of homo-"marriage" in the state must be recognized universally. Even if these relationships fail, the well-funded homo lobby will support the charade of their continuing "marriage" with money to use as a tool to further their perverted cause.
The voters who passed this amendment knew the essence of what they were voting for: No same-sex "marriage" in their state. That is exactly what they should get.
I am one of those voters and I say the existing marriages don't count. Grandfather laws are BS. The marriages exist now and they will stay in effect until they are dissolved, which they will be, it is just a matter of time. A person can get so wrapped up in their ideals they fail to see the big picture and people like you are.
I'm not so sure you didn't contradict yourself. You're saying you don't think the grandfathered "marriages" are valid, but then say they will stay in effect until dissolved? I agree with you on your first points, but it's not being overly "wrapped up in ideals" to see the obvious implications if these "marriages" are allowed to remain legal. I believe I'm seeing the big picture - the one planned by the homo-activists.
Ref. my tagline.