Skip to comments.
California Proposition 8 ruling: PROP 8 UPHELD (faux marriages to remain)
local media
Posted on 05/26/2009 10:03:42 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
The California Supreme Court rules to UPHOLD Proposition 8 (which put into the California state constitution that marriage is defined as being between a man and woman)
The court also ruled on the validation of the pseudo-marriages performed before passage of Prop 8.
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: caglbt; gaystapo; homobama; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; marriage; moralabsolutes; panicinpervtown; prop8; proposition8; ruling; samesexmarriage; traditionalmarriage; willofthepeople
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-213 next last
To: CounterCounterCulture
Oxymoronic decision
2
posted on
05/26/2009 10:05:02 AM PDT
by
Las Vegas Ron
(zer0 is doing to capitalism what Kennedy did to health care)
To: CounterCounterCulture
Of course they uphold it. Anyone who thought otherwise is crazy. They would never overturn the vote of the people
To: CounterCounterCulture
I think that’s probably what most people were expecting.
The libs know that we’ll just go through this fight again next year. It never ends until they win by attrition.
4
posted on
05/26/2009 10:05:39 AM PDT
by
rom
(Obama '12 slogan: Let's keep on hopin'!)
To: CounterCounterCulture
5
posted on
05/26/2009 10:05:39 AM PDT
by
joejm65
To: CounterCounterCulture
Better than I was expecting, anyway
6
posted on
05/26/2009 10:05:46 AM PDT
by
pissant
(THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
Two rulings: Prop 8 upheld... gay marriages not to be recognized, but existing “married” couples to remian.
7
posted on
05/26/2009 10:05:52 AM PDT
by
CounterCounterCulture
(RECALL Abel Maldonado; DEPORT Arnold Schwarzenegger)
To: CounterCounterCulture
Homosexuals’ “marriages” are bogus.
8
posted on
05/26/2009 10:06:00 AM PDT
by
kellynla
(Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
To: CounterCounterCulture
Carrie 1
Perez 0
But what a stupid outcome. It’s like telling your kids that it’s wrong to steal, but letting them keep the stuff they swiped from the store yesterday.
9
posted on
05/26/2009 10:06:19 AM PDT
by
bigbob
To: bigbob
The Gaystapo has been unleashed to the streets in anger of the decision.
11
posted on
05/26/2009 10:06:45 AM PDT
by
CounterCounterCulture
(RECALL Abel Maldonado; DEPORT Arnold Schwarzenegger)
To: CounterCounterCulture
Agree with the decision of course, but they should have invalidated the prior gay marriages.
12
posted on
05/26/2009 10:06:46 AM PDT
by
Enterprise
(The Porkulus brought us economic swine flu.)
To: CounterCounterCulture
18,000 “marriages” to remain legal.
We’ll be voting in 2010 .. again.
13
posted on
05/26/2009 10:06:54 AM PDT
by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... Godspeed.)
To: pissant
“Better than I was expecting, anyway”
Yep.
14
posted on
05/26/2009 10:07:11 AM PDT
by
AuntB
(The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
To: Las Vegas Ron
there is precident.
states which abolished common law marriage. allowed prior common law marriages to stand.
15
posted on
05/26/2009 10:07:18 AM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: kellynla
Yes, it’s like calling a dog a cat. You can do it, but it doesn’t make it so.
16
posted on
05/26/2009 10:07:24 AM PDT
by
brytlea
(Jesus loves me, this I know.)
To: Sarah Barracuda
Of course they uphold it. Anyone who thought otherwise is crazy. They would never overturn the vote of the people At least not a third time anyways....
17
posted on
05/26/2009 10:08:23 AM PDT
by
Always Right
(Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
To: Admin Moderator
Breaking news... multiple threads heads up.
18
posted on
05/26/2009 10:08:26 AM PDT
by
CounterCounterCulture
(RECALL Abel Maldonado; DEPORT Arnold Schwarzenegger)
To: CounterCounterCulture
KFI (640am) Los Angeles
Handle (Handle on the Law fame) is trying to cast this as a non victory for those opposing homosexual marriage, stating that the actual issues before the court didn’t relate to homosexual marriage per se.
He states it was an issue of whether the initiative changed the state constitution or not.
Preempting Rush to bloviate on the topic.
19
posted on
05/26/2009 10:08:27 AM PDT
by
DoughtyOne
(Obama is mentally a child of ten. Just remember that when he makes statements and issues policy.)
To: Las Vegas Ron
Is this an intentional loophole to leave this legally open to challenge??
20
posted on
05/26/2009 10:08:58 AM PDT
by
Kieri
(The Conservatrarian)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-213 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson