Text of California Supreme Court Opinion on Prop 8

5/26/09 | Cal Supreme Court

[rwa265]

“The brief version, before you click on it, appears very strange.?”

Maybe the reaction from gay activists?

[FreepShop1]

"It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values".

This is a pathetic attempt to keep fags from protesting outside their homes.

[DoughtyOne]

I wouldn’t go out of my way to bend the interpretation of this to my political views.

Take it on it’s face value. It has much more power when you do. You may in fact be right, but when the court states a clear sound fact, don’t soil it. Affirm it.

[goldstategop]

The only downside is the several thousand same sex marriages contracted after re Marriage Cases remain valid. Its an absurd holding that contradicts the Court's ruling in this case and I don't see how a marriage that violates the clear intent of the Constitution can remain valid.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Centurion2000]

Damn, what’s the cliff notes version of this?

[freekitty]

Me either.

[Jolla]

Dats my Supremes, riots at 11

[Jolla]

Damn, what’s the cliff notes version of this?

I would say this part:

supra, 43 Cal.4th 757. Rather, same-sex couples continue to enjoy the same substantive core benefits afforded by those state constitutional rights as those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples — including the constitutional right to enter into an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one’s choice and to raise children in that family if the couple so chooses — with the sole, albeit significant, exception that the designation of “marriage” is, by virtue of the new state constitutional provision, now reserved for opposite-sex couples.

[Pikachu_Dad]

it is more... ‘nanny nanny boo boo - you closed the door but we already got 18,000 ‘marriages’ on the books’.

Now those 18,000 ‘married’ couples will be lobbying to have their marriages re-recognized.

it is not a good decision.

they pretty much made it clear that ‘they’ were on the other side of the issue.

[wmfights]

Hard to believe they would actually follow the law and let a valid proposition pass and become law.

[P-Marlowe]

Hard to believe they would actually follow the law and let a valid proposition pass and become law.

Especially when the Attorney General [Jerry Moonbeam Brown] (who is charged by law to defend these propositions against these frivilous challenges) lead the charge to try to get it overturned.

[wmfights]

Especially when the Attorney General [Jerry Moonbeam Brown] (who is charged by law to defend these propositions against these frivilous challenges) lead the charge to try to get it overturned.

I had forgotten that. I haven't followed this very closely because it seems the courts throw out all the conservative, or morally upright, propositions in CA.

Maybe the lesson to learn is if this can become law in CA. it can become law anywhere!

[Jolla]

I am not clear on whom you refer to as they (the gay/lesbian group or the jurist?). I do consider a recognition of marriage as being between a man and a woman as considered and affirmed on numerous occasions by the majority of the voters a good decision. Furthermore why someone who is recognized would want to be re-recognized would be somewhat redundant.

[goldstategop]

Translated: gays have full marriage-equivalent rights. All they can't do is call themselves "married."

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[LuxAerterna]

Why do they have to cut down a tree to say Prop 8 upheld?

No kidding. It shouldn't have taken up more than a couple pages to uphold it.

[Pikachu_Dad]

The jurist.

It is a ‘bad decision’ because the jurists go through extraordinary pains to set the groundwork and what they need to overturn this vote.

[Forest Keeper]

Thanks for the ping.

My impression has always been that it was the ninth cir. that were the nut jobs, but that the Cal. SC was actually a reasonable court (even though they split the baby on this one). Is that right?