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

Skip to comments.

Court says backers can defend gay marriage measure (CA)
San Diego Union Tribune ^ | Nov 17, 2011 | LISA LEFF

Posted on 11/17/2011 12:43:46 PM PST by BAW

The sponsors of ballot propositions can step in to defend their initiatives from legal challenges if the governor and attorney general refuse to do so, California's highest court said Thursday in a precedent-setting ruling that could prove pivotal to the future of the state's same-sex marriage ban and its notoriously vigorous citizens' initiative process.

Responding to a question from a federal appeals court that is considering the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban, the California Supreme Court said the lawmaking power granted to citizens under the state constitution doesn't end once propositions have been approved or rejected by voters.

(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; gay; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; nambla; pederastagenda; prop8
This is good news. Twice Californians have voted against gay marriage, and twice the elected elite of this state have ignored the will of the people. This ruling allows the proponents of Proposition 8 to carry the issue forward.
1 posted on 11/17/2011 12:43:47 PM PST by BAW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BAW

Imagine that.

A court case is allowed to have a defense.

A travesty of justice!

lol.


2 posted on 11/17/2011 12:45:23 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW

This is a warning of what the federal government will look like if Obama gets a second term — we are almost there already.
No respect or regard for the law. They do what they want to do....why? Because the people do not fight back.

They bend over and take it. (There is a lot of that in California!)


3 posted on 11/17/2011 12:54:05 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW

UNANIMOUS! Excellent. Happy day.


4 posted on 11/17/2011 12:58:24 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW

Maybe we can now get a defense of Proposition 187 (1994 SOS initiative restricted illegal aliens) that Gray Davis refused to defend.


5 posted on 11/17/2011 1:02:49 PM PST by RightGeek (FUBO and the donkey you rode in on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW
The proponents of Proposition 8 will now be able to have legal standing in federal court. I expect the Nine Circus to set aside the trial court's ruling and send it back for a new trial de novo since Proposition 8 backers couldn't defend it in the original proceedings.

The Left is saddened, deeply saddened! But its good news for California voters and the defense of traditional marriage movement. What this means is the trial court has to hear it all over again, not just from state officials who refused to defend Proposition 8 and then issue its ruling. There will be a new hearing in Federal Court on it in the coming year.

6 posted on 11/17/2011 1:06:24 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW

Proposition 187, anyone?


7 posted on 11/17/2011 1:10:22 PM PST by truthkeeper (Vote Against Barack Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW

8 posted on 11/17/2011 1:14:15 PM PST by South40 (NO RINOS IN 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW

Great. Now it’s time to revisit Prop. 187!!


9 posted on 11/17/2011 1:15:03 PM PST by Politicalmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

I don’t think it applies to past measures. But state officials who don’t defend future propositions because they don’t like them, the proponents will have that standing in court to defend them.


10 posted on 11/17/2011 1:20:55 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BAW

Does this prevent the governor or attorney general giving a half assed *wink* *wink* defense for initiatives that they would love to see defeated?


11 posted on 11/17/2011 1:33:19 PM PST by steveo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Day 48 Of The FReepathon
Do you Know Why?

There are loyal posters that donate every FReepathon. Some donate several times during every 'thon. But others never donate. Why?

1 My enemies haven't been zotted.
2 The owner doesn't support my candidate.
3 FR won't "upgrade" to "Like" buttons and blinky crap.
4 Someone else will donate.
5 My friend was zotted.
6 I lost my job and have no income.

Only one of those is a legitimate reason.

Support It Or Lose It


12 posted on 11/17/2011 1:33:32 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]




Click the Pic               Thank you, JoeProBono

Hang on, Gary!

Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!


Donate Monthly
Sponsors will pony up a sawbuck
For each New Monthly Donor

13 posted on 11/17/2011 1:35:22 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steveo

What it means is that if the state refuses to defend an initiative, the proponents have the standing to defend it on behalf of the people. If the state doesn’t do its job, like they didn’t do it on Proposition 8, the trial court made its ruling in error. That will now be aside and heard again but the state won’t represent Proposition 8; its original sponsors will and the trial court will have to take their arguments in its defense into consideration as though as the state did defend it.


14 posted on 11/17/2011 1:38:42 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BAW

this has been settled twice so why the more court actions


15 posted on 11/17/2011 2:05:39 PM PST by manc (Marriage is between one man and one woman. I HATE OUR BIAS LIBERAL CORRUPT MEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

it also means the trial court homosexual judge who heard the case and is now retired will not be hearing the case.


16 posted on 11/17/2011 2:09:53 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: manc
this has been settled twice so why the more court actions

Ahhh, your thought is at the heart of the issue. More court action is required because the will of the people - as expressed in a state wide ballot - was ruled unconstitutional.

California's governor would not defend the case in court.

Today's ruling permits the orignal proponents standing to defend the issue in court. In effect, the original proponents of the proposition will be able to carry the legal challenge and side step the state.

17 posted on 11/17/2011 2:23:19 PM PST by BAW (No Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BAW

Our overlords are gracious enough to let us give our opinions.

Very nice of them.

They’re still going to say “no”, but at least we get to make our case.


18 posted on 11/17/2011 4:05:32 PM PST by Tzimisce (Never forget that the American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

this has been settled twice so why the more court actions

Because having one court ruling isn’t enough, they want to have another show trial to simply wave in our faces and say that our stances were completely wrong, once again, that’s how intimidation works, you repeatedly reject someone’s ideas to make them feel discouraged. They also feel they can give a better look to it by giving some right to defense. Again, I will admit that this is my negative gauge kicking in, so forgive the harsh tone, I could be wrong, it may be that they actually felt the ruling was unfair, but either way, this is just one issue where we will never be able to be passive on, because the opposition isn’t doing it either.


19 posted on 11/17/2011 5:00:49 PM PST by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BAW

The Federal employees have already decided what their going to impose, their just fishing for a chance to do it cause the State of Califorina seems apparently uninterested in obliging.

I anticipate a show trial.


20 posted on 11/17/2011 5:20:43 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Know What Your Gov't Is Up To
By Keeping The News Going
On The WWW #1 Conservative Site
Free Republic!!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


21 posted on 11/17/2011 5:21:18 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheOldLady; FReepers; everyone; All

Please Donate!!

FReepathon Day 48!!

22 posted on 11/17/2011 5:47:57 PM PST by onyx (PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC BY DONATING NOW! Sarah's New Ping List - tell me if you want on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RightGeek

That is the very first thing that came to mind when I heard the news, Prop 187 NOW.


23 posted on 11/17/2011 7:10:48 PM PST by eyeamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

You can’t occupy that....last I checked. I live in crummy California, you are right, we are occupied by loons, libs, and wannabe loons and limbs.


24 posted on 11/17/2011 7:15:42 PM PST by Squat (Deport the illegals now! Turn Home Depot's into the prisons to hold the illegals!.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightGeek

Yeah, we need to look into that (for 187)...is there a ping list for illegal immigration...anyone?


25 posted on 11/17/2011 11:14:55 PM PST by Rick_Michael ( 'REAL' Conservatives who witch hunt their own, are no better than Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: All; BAW
I'm shocked! You mean the People who put initiatives on ballots actually have standing to defend them? Thank you CA Supreme Court for ruling in this blindingly common sense manner. That it was an open question should give everyone pause.

From my reading of the decision, the group put up a terrible defense but in no way should a citizen-place initiative be defended in the courts on the whim of a governor or AG who may oppose a measure the voter's adopted.

26 posted on 11/18/2011 12:14:47 AM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama and Speaker Pelosi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW
The "will of the people" is absolutely meaningless in California.

Proposition 8, overwhelmingly supported and passed by the California citizenry, will ultimately end up on the same trash heap as Proposition 187, which was supported and passed overwhelmingly by the California citizenry in 1994. Only those propositions that meet with the approval of the politically correct, elite socialist crowd ("the Democrats") ever get enacted. That's just the way it is.

Buh-bye, California.


27 posted on 11/18/2011 12:24:35 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All; Politicalmom
I also thought about 187.

Elected officials not defending voter approved laws before the courts has been a sore spot for a very long time.

It was made worse when Obama and Holder adopted the tactic of selectively-defending at the federal level with DOMA.

No matter what you think of a law, there's a duty for the state to fight for it before the courts. Our system, our body politic, needs the adversarial process or it degrades into despotism.

28 posted on 11/18/2011 12:31:04 AM PST by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelect Obama and Speaker Pelosi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper

Prop 187, my thoughts, exactly.


29 posted on 11/18/2011 5:33:35 AM PST by SmithL (Proud Tennessee Volunteer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BAW

It’s a common sense ruling. If an initiative’s sponsors could not defend it in court, the State government would have an easy way to defeat it regardless of how the People voted. What’s surprising is that common sense came from any part of the California government.


30 posted on 11/18/2011 8:17:08 AM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW

Wonder if this means they can dust off Prop 187


31 posted on 11/18/2011 10:28:29 AM PST by Tribune7 (If you demand perfection you will wind up with leftist Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.
Please donate early.

32 posted on 11/18/2011 12:32:01 PM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BAW

It’s pretty amazing the way these politicians don’t even pretend to represent their constituents anymore.


33 posted on 11/18/2011 1:19:19 PM PST by thefoundersrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefoundersrock

“It’s pretty amazing the way these politicians don’t even pretend to represent their constituents anymore.”

Look at the Kenyan Pirate, refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law of the land. Apparently as a foreigner he doesn’t represent US law...


34 posted on 11/18/2011 7:29:13 PM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BAW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6wAWb96MmM


35 posted on 11/19/2011 10:32:27 AM PST by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BAW

I’ll believe it when I see it. Chances are the elite will just keep fudging up the works until the get the desired results.


36 posted on 11/19/2011 2:41:21 PM PST by Ancient Drive (DRINK COFFEE! - Do Stupid Things Faster with More Energy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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