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

Skip to comments.

Calif. won't appeal Prop 8 ruling (and judge says regular citizen have no standing)
UPI ^ | Aug. 12, 2010

Posted on 08/13/2010 4:15:28 AM PDT by xzins

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 last
To: P-Marlowe

Your reasoning is how we ended up with a Democratic run congress, because millions of people would rather have the RATS run up a trillion dollar defeict than a Bush 100 billion. I will take a smart business leader over a 40 year politican just on the outside they may get something done. Maybe you could bend a little to get rid of Jerry.


101 posted on 08/13/2010 10:51:53 AM PDT by q_an_a (a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; blue-duncan; wmfights; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
If the very sponsors of the amendment that was overturned by the judge do not have "standing", then it appears to me that the concept of standing has problems that the malicious use as a club.

The "ruling class" seems to think that since "they know better" we will just be good boys and girls and obey. I think in the end they will be shocked at the response.

102 posted on 08/13/2010 11:20:52 AM PDT by wmfights (If you want change support SenateConservatives.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: xzins

There is a reason these people are pompous and arrogant. Voters didn’t care for many, many, many years.

We’re now paying the price for that apathy.


103 posted on 08/13/2010 11:25:33 AM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: q_an_a
Maybe you could bend a little to get rid of Jerry.

Nope. I don't countenance to liars. Meg stole the nomination by lying about her positions. As soon as she got the nomination she started running left. She's the female version of Arnold. I would rather have a democrat to blame when this state finally folds up it's tent and sinks into the pacific. I'm going to vote third party on this one.

104 posted on 08/13/2010 11:25:39 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; Carry_Okie; SunkenCiv

Do you have a ruling class ping list?

The law is supposed to be defended whether or not the executives (Governor nor Attorney General) agree with the law or not.

The arrogance of the ruling class must not be permitted to go on without them paying a penalty for such malfeasance.

I’d also believe Fair Opinion & her posse deserve to fry in hell for her aid in undermining the recall effort. Schwarzenegger is just as bad and arguably worse than Davis ever was.


105 posted on 08/13/2010 12:39:04 PM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla (Yesterday's Left = today's status quo. Thus CONSERVATIVE is a conflicted label for battling tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“The Alliance Defense Fund, one of the organizations defending Prop. 8 in court, has said repeatedly that the ban’s proponents have full standing to carry on their fight, considering the gravity of the case and its impact on Californians.

“It’s ridiculous to think that the proponents of the ballot initiative would be prevented from continuing to represent the successful result of that initiative all the way,” said Douglas Napier, an Alliance Defense Fund lawyer.

Santa Clara University law Professor Margaret Russell said Napier and his colleagues might be able to overcome the standing issue raised by Walker.

“It’s an interesting question,” she said. “They weren’t the original defendants in this case, but I think that because they were the parties who actually tried the case in Walker’s court, they may have standing - because right now there is no other party to appeal.”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/13/MNFA1ERRMV.DTL#ixzz0wW4eS7DL";


106 posted on 08/13/2010 12:40:49 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

The nightmare is spreading. We have a gangsta in the White House and everyone in government from the top down is corrupt and godless. We have to find a way to bring this country back to what it was...back from evil to good.


107 posted on 08/13/2010 12:45:58 PM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I’m a California voter - I should have standing!!!


108 posted on 08/13/2010 1:06:40 PM PDT by BAW (Arizona.got it right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

If the history of Israel is a guide, we are in for a very very very rough go for as long as it takes to return to God.


109 posted on 08/13/2010 1:44:42 PM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Papa of two new Army Brats! Congrats to my Soldier son and his wife.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Valdemar Republic

I have no idea what that means. Do you mean Vladimir?

110 posted on 08/13/2010 1:58:10 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: Obama is the dog who caught the fire truck!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: xzins
What does this mean, exactly? does this mean that we can no longer move forward with appeals to the next level? If so, one person has overthrown the government of the people, by the people: there is a remedy for this.
111 posted on 08/13/2010 2:03:55 PM PDT by happygrl (Continuing to predict that Obama will resign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

Agreed.

When will a leader step forward to take our grievance process to the next level?


112 posted on 08/13/2010 2:17:08 PM PDT by chilltherats (First, kill all the lawyers (now that they ARE the tyrants).......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: happygrl

1st amendment: “right of the people to petition for redress of grievance.”

If not being able to appeal a case brought by the people in the first place isn’t an outrageous grievance, then nothing is.


113 posted on 08/13/2010 2:27:25 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Why would he be forced to? Homosexuals may be able to marry in civil ceremonies but the government can't force religions to violate their teachings.

No, but if the churches lose their tax exempt status on the backs of this ruling (a much shorter stretch than overturning Prop 8 and saying the voters that passed it have no standing to appeal) the vast majority of large churches will be out of business within a year as they went tens of millions of dollars into debt to build their rock-star sanctuaries.
114 posted on 08/13/2010 2:43:52 PM PDT by Yet_Again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas
“Revolution is coming, it must come.”

Let us pray it is in the form of the voting booth.

The voting booth only works when people respect its result. this has been tried by the people of California twice now on this issue, with the same result. Both times, liberal elites have used the court system to overturn the will of the people.

Now this black robed nazgul has declared himself a dictator and stated that, for all intents and purposes his word is law.

Such a situation is beyond the ability of a ballot box to rectify.

115 posted on 08/13/2010 2:46:07 PM PDT by Yet_Again
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Yet_Again
No, but if the churches lose their tax exempt status on the backs of this ruling (a much shorter stretch than overturning Prop 8 and saying the voters that passed it have no standing to appeal) the vast majority of large churches will be out of business within a year as they went tens of millions of dollars into debt to build their rock-star sanctuaries.

I doubt that will happen. Some churches may do gay marriages but I don't think those that refuse will be forced to.

116 posted on 08/13/2010 2:58:04 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
I think in the end they will be shocked at the response.

For what little time they have left as the swing by their necks...

117 posted on 08/13/2010 3:42:21 PM PDT by Michael Barnes (Call me when the bullets start flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
Valdemar Republic

I have no idea what that means.

I think it was meant to be the Weimar Republic

There seem many parallels between them and us right now...

118 posted on 08/13/2010 4:30:49 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: xzins
This situation becomes more outrageous by the day.

The state has declared that it will not defend a constitutional amendment legally approved in a popular vote by a majority of the state's citizens, and overturned in a ridiculous decision by one lone gay activist federal district court judge.

The government of California has utter contempt for the people of California.

This is untenable. If the normal processes of government no longer function, and citizens are disenfranchised and disregarded by an increasingly imperious ruling class, I fear we are rapidly approaching a time when violence will become the only recourse.

119 posted on 08/13/2010 4:54:24 PM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito

The American Revolution was not a Tea Party. It was preceded by a tea party.

After that, it was a war.


120 posted on 08/13/2010 5:13:15 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

By not choosing to stand with and defend the law as passed by the voters he should suffer worse.


121 posted on 08/13/2010 6:02:45 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

There most certainly is damage. There is the additional cost to support the contradictory arrangement ‘gay marriage’. Also there is there is a cultural cost just as if a state were forced to license polygamy or any other alternative union. Also there is the legal cost which sets precedence that if a state licenses one thing that they must also be compelled to grant licenses for anything that a person or person might want.

No one has ever been discriminated against. The state offered licensing for anyone who wanted to marry a person of the opposite sex. There was no discrimination and there never has been. No more than a place that specializes in selling pies is discriminating because it doesn’t serve the flavor of pie someone wishes. Just because someone chooses to live a gay lifestyle does not mean they were prevented from marrying they just didn’t like the terms.

So much of this debate is based on such a degree of intellectually dishonest crap.


122 posted on 08/13/2010 6:12:42 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

No it is not marriage. It is a mockery of it.


123 posted on 08/13/2010 6:13:52 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SF_Redux

I am beginning to think that is true. When the people have their say taken away by a judge through what is clearly unreasoned made up bullshit the people have one option left.
This is not a govt of the people for the people it is a govt for those in positions of power. It is time to pull the plug on their power.


124 posted on 08/13/2010 6:15:50 PM PDT by Maelstorm (This country was not founded with the battle cry "give me liberty or give me a govt check!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Genoa

It’s weird, but I actually find myself thinking that it’s better for California to have same-sex marriage ....(theThe USSC deciding that same sex marriage is a constitutionalright in all 50 states.”

AAAHHHH Camel’s nose > tent....

No way this should stand....If Jerry Brown wasn’t the AG it wouldn’t stop until it hit the USSC.

Think this is bad? If Jerry gets elected Governor it’ll get way worse.


125 posted on 08/13/2010 6:22:08 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (..."Down the Dems, in 2010!" "Beat Babs!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

“I do not care if they receive everything a married couple receives, and tht include alimony,but it isnt a marriage.”

Why not? Their marriage is worthless. There is a zero percent chance they’ll add any further members to the workforce. None. Their marriage is a sham compared to your average heterosexual marriage. Why should they receive equal benefits?


126 posted on 08/13/2010 7:56:35 PM PDT by CaspersGh0sts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: old republic

“. The government is becoming so non-responsive to the people that it makes you wonder if things will eventually force people into civil disobedience”

Civil disobedience would have happened a long time ago in another era. Or from the left.


127 posted on 08/13/2010 8:04:31 PM PDT by CaspersGh0sts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: manc

“agreed and we still have so called conservatives saying well I know a homosexual and they are nice so I have no problem if they get married etc.”

This has nothing to do with love. Any homosexual can hold a ceremony to declare their lifelong love for any persversion they so choose. There are absolutely no laws against any such private and personal expression in any state in the union.

This is purley about forcing the state and all members of society to recognize their sham marriages. This is about redefining marriage to exclude any aspect of forming a family. This is about taking over instituations and forcing their perversions upon the general public—on “coming out.”

And the housewives of American squeeled as they watched their favorite stuffed gay male perform for them on televsion in cutesey and utterly ridiculous outfits. Soon, of course, to leave for his gay bar, where teenage boys were handed around to 50 year old men like candy. And n’ere a word about the “chickenhawks” be spoken...


128 posted on 08/13/2010 8:10:48 PM PDT by CaspersGh0sts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
I think it was meant to be the Weimar Republic

Ah, yes, thanks, that makes sense.

129 posted on 08/13/2010 8:11:02 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: Obama is the dog who caught the fire truck!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

They should file a lawsuit suing Arnie and Jerry for failing to fulfill the duties of their office. They have failed to defend the constitution of the State of California. Moreover, they should also sue the legislators for failure to perform the duties of their office as well if they do not impeach Arnie and Jerry. Furthermore, if you are a citizen of California (registered voter) you should have standing in this case. It is a violation of your civil rights that your vote and thousands of others are being overturned and invalidated (no longer counted) by two men, Arnold and Jerry, who choose to flout the will of people of California by making this decision not to pursue this matter in Federal Court for all the people of California who voted for Prop 8. Would it be ok for Jerry to decide that he no longer wants to prosecute the laws because he personally disagrees with them? Of course not, For instance, what if Jerry decided that Pedophilia is ok? Would that be acceptable? The voters of CA. decided that was illegal therefore he is required to prosecute and defend that law. Only the court gets to decide the constitutionality of the law. BTW that is a law based on the mores of society. Therefore, a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman only, is a law based on the mores of society and is not a violation of civil rights. The only reason that marriage has never been defined by law previously is that it has been UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD (Common Law) for centuries as being between a man and a woman. I challenge anyone to find a quote from one of the founders of this great nation stating that marriage is acceptable between members of the same sex. You won’t find any references because they do not exist.


130 posted on 08/13/2010 10:58:30 PM PDT by The Mighty Bryan (File charges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.

I’m there now.


131 posted on 08/13/2010 11:22:39 PM PDT by happygrl (Continuing to predict that Obama will resign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Another example of the uselessness of Governor Ahnold and his liberal Republican faction


132 posted on 08/14/2010 6:09:53 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Rush was right when he said America may survive Obama but not the Obama supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Also, people in CA really don’t know what they are doing about much of anything.


133 posted on 08/14/2010 6:12:08 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Rush was right when he said America may survive Obama but not the Obama supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Forty-Niner

Many CA voters are so uninformed that they don’t even know who “Jerry Brown” is because the name is so common.


134 posted on 08/14/2010 6:15:08 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Rush was right when he said America may survive Obama but not the Obama supporters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: imahawk

It was long ago time for the cartridge box. It is the only thing tyrants understand. They have no problem with death and destruction wrought by their actions or inactions, they weep in public while planning the next stage of the conquest of “Humanities soul”.


135 posted on 08/14/2010 6:31:45 AM PDT by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CaspersGh0sts

Nail on head.

We all love things and other people but do not feel the need to have sex with them or that.
To say that it is about love is a crock and you hit the nail on the head.


136 posted on 08/14/2010 8:01:40 AM PDT by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: xzins

We’re starting to pay for decades of apathy.


137 posted on 08/14/2010 9:50:29 AM PDT by Tzimisce (No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: runninglips

I agree.


138 posted on 08/14/2010 4:01:43 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Life is tough.It's tougher when you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

“the judge said it “both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” “

Isn’t that nice that they
1: Think we have a “fundamental right to marry” if that were the case we should have the “right” to marry our dog, cat, or even ourselves. What meaning is there to this thing they call Marriage in California?

2: and the injustice things it “creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.” As if your sex had nothing to do with your ability to reproductive capabilities.

I would assert this 1 simple truth Marriage is NOT just about love it is indeed mostly about procreation. That’s why we have laws against marriage between close family members, the underages, between us and non-humans, and historically the inability of your partner to provide you with a child was grounds for a diverse.

This basic and historic propose of the union known as marriage is also why marriage was said to be consummated only after you had sexual intercourse with your spouse.(An act the Catholic Church historically condemned for any other propose then procreation).

Indeed all the evidence both historic and traditional in the world points to the simple fact that marriage is about procreation, not just love, or really even necessarily love at all.

This is why churches correctly say that people of the same sex cannot marry unless they are capable of having a child with each other. It has nothing to do with discrimination against homosexuals and everything to do with the basic propose and function of Marriage.


139 posted on 08/14/2010 7:14:11 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

If the judge who ruled on this is a homosexual, then the ruling is biased!


140 posted on 08/15/2010 8:12:32 AM PDT by upcountryhorseman (An old fashioned conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bryan24

You find the “living, breathing” version.


141 posted on 08/15/2010 8:15:07 AM PDT by REDWOOD99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Try this.

The next step in grass roots activism is to *reclaim* the party from the RINOs at the base: it is the precinct committee chairs who select the candidates.

Now, that's what I'm talk about! I knew nothing about this; thanks for posting it. I am going to definitely look into it in my locale.

142 posted on 08/16/2010 4:50:39 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: xzins

When the system is rigged, violence is the last option. Convince me otherwise.


143 posted on 08/16/2010 9:46:12 AM PDT by RingerSIX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

So, if the decision is not appealed and upheld by a higher court is the decision limited to California?


144 posted on 08/16/2010 5:42:06 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RingerSIX
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

145 posted on 08/16/2010 5:59:09 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Well, Aronald was elected by a majority of voters and after he was elected, I read nothing but praise for him and the republican Party wanted to make a deal with the democrats so they could run him for President. I suppose that he isas qualified as obama is.


146 posted on 08/16/2010 6:04:35 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sport

Arnold never got support from me. However, I’m an Ohioan. But Scott Brown never got support from me, either.


147 posted on 08/16/2010 6:08:03 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

“Many CA voters are so uninformed that they don’t even know who “Jerry Brown” is because the name is so common.”

If ya call him Gov Moonbean everyone will know who your talking about......


148 posted on 08/16/2010 9:50:10 PM PDT by Forty-Niner (..."Down the Dems, in 2010!" "Beat Babs!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-148 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