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

Skip to comments.

Pelosi Statement on California State Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage
Speaker.house.gov ^

Posted on 05/15/2008 12:30:30 PM PDT by Sub-Driver

Press Releases Contact: Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami 202-226-7616 For Immediate Release 05/15/2008 Pelosi Statement on California State Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement in reaction to the California Supreme Court’s decision today to strike the state ban on gay marriage:

“I welcome the California Supreme Court’s historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California’s citizens and families, which today’s decision recognizes.

“I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court’s decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution.

“Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride.”


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: 110th; caglbt; homosexualagenda; pelosi; playinghouse; ruling; samesexmarriage; yap; yapyap; yapyapyapyapyap
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: Sub-Driver

“And screw Pope Benedict XVI - his ring seared my lips when I bent down to kiss it.”


21 posted on 05/15/2008 12:47:18 PM PDT by Notwithstanding ("You are either with America in our time of need or you are not" - Hillary from Senate well 9/12/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: litehaus

This will not be the end of the issue. This is the opening the gay activists have been looking for.

In Mass. there is a state law that bans out of state people from getting married if their home state wouldn’t recognize same. I don’t think Calif. has such a law. So out of state homosexuals are going to come to Calif. get legally married in Calif. and then go file lawsuits in their home states to get the marriage recognized there.

And the next step will be to go to federal court, to force the federal government to recognize same sex marriage.

It’s coming to federal court, it’s just a matter of time.


22 posted on 05/15/2008 12:47:26 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

she no more cares about families than she does this country, she is a nutcase, plain and simple, the perfect representative for SF.


23 posted on 05/15/2008 12:47:30 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline—1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; All
Romans 1:25-27 tells us that same-sex sexual relationships are a consequence of idolatry. In other words, such relationships are a consequence of disobeying the 1ST COMMANDMENT, a major aspect of the GREATEST COMMANDMENT, to love the jealous God with all your being.

Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.

John 3:16
Revelation 3:20

24 posted on 05/15/2008 12:47:45 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniusMaximus

its already started in the court rooms won’t be long before it takes to the streets....i think most people have had enough...


25 posted on 05/15/2008 12:49:38 PM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
“Will someone please tell this stupid woman to shut up. I’ve heard just about enough out of her today.”

You've got it all wrong my friend. We want her to praise the decision. That helps republicans greatly and hurts democrats. She has to praise it because she represents SF, but it is a losing position to be for gay marriage and it is a huge gift to republicans that this was passed before the election.

26 posted on 05/15/2008 12:50:03 PM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jobim
We will not bend to the marriages!

Nice choice of words........

27 posted on 05/15/2008 12:51:47 PM PDT by Red Badger ( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Let's ask Obama his opinion on this -- is this the kind of CHANGE you'll bring about (that we ALL can believe in) ?

If only the media would put this question to him again, and again, and again -- and we'd see him squirm, hem, and haw. If he's a true Christian, he'd condemn the Calif court.

An Obama-nation WOULD BE an abomination.

28 posted on 05/15/2008 12:52:44 PM PDT by TruthRespecter (We lost a family member killed by a wildly-driving drunk illegal alien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver; All
Given what I've read from the opinion so far, if California's majority voters want to allow only man woman marriages then it is up to them to flex their voting muscle to amend their constitution to say so.

The bottom line is that Californians can choose not to be slaves to their own constitution or the judges who interpret it.

29 posted on 05/15/2008 12:53:52 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notwithstanding

So do you think her bishop will have the cajones that the Archbishop of KC,Kansas has in calling the Gov of Kansas to the carpet??? This has potential on so many levels....


30 posted on 05/15/2008 12:55:27 PM PDT by Ravens70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Queer marriage ok but polygamy bad.
31 posted on 05/15/2008 12:56:00 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan

Would ye really approach men in your lusts rather than Women? Nay, ye are a people ignorant! (Koran 27:55)


32 posted on 05/15/2008 12:56:03 PM PDT by PurpleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"I'm the Democratic National Congressional Committee and I approve this message!"

How many of those Blue Dogs want to see this in an ad in October? Thanks, Nancy!

33 posted on 05/15/2008 1:02:36 PM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (Another non-bitter Pennsylvanian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Why stop with two people?

Since the Libs want us to follow laws of other nations, why not three or four "wifes" as in some other nations?

Since we cannot use historical or religion's norms, then who's to say multiple partners are not acceptable?

What about animals? Why not marriage my dog? What would a court base their ruling on this question? After all my dog has feelings and is considered part of my family.............

34 posted on 05/15/2008 1:03:11 PM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

The only good news about this ruling is that it’s going to be a watershed for stuff to use against Obama in the campaign. The American public is going to reject Obama when they see him linked to naked men kissing and militant lesbians forcing their lifestyle on innocent kids. This is going to be a fun election season watching the alternative lifestylers freak out as Obama loses big time.


35 posted on 05/15/2008 1:03:57 PM PDT by TomBeddingfield
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthRespecter
Obama will lie about being for gay marriage and make the charge that the republicans are trying to scare people with wedge issues, etc. instead of talking about real issues (i.e, the ones that the democrats think they have the winning side of the issue). Gay marriage is a losing issue. There is no way Obama is going to praise this ruling or say he is for gay marriage.
36 posted on 05/15/2008 1:04:17 PM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
If anyone ever had any doubt, the state (and nation) are ruled by a handful of people in black robes (Mark Levin's Men in Black). Even though they had a MAJORITY VOTER-passed law, these dictators said "no way". Thus, it is null and void. It doesn't matter what is passed in a ballot! We live in a dictatorship, plain and simple.
The saddest part is that my kids will never know how great it USED TO BE to live in liberty and where their voices mattered.
37 posted on 05/15/2008 1:06:17 PM PDT by TxAg1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PurpleMan
I would not be quoting the Koran. I would not use it for toilet paper myself.

If the people of this great country are dumb enough to let the liberal democrats run this country, then we shall get what we deserve.

38 posted on 05/15/2008 1:06:43 PM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Serious opponents to this in California should set to work on amending the California State Constitution. Since there’s little hope of getting 2/3 of the members of the California State Legislature’s houses to vote to do so it would have to be done by initiative. In California that currently requires 157,686 valid signatures (8% of the votes cast in the last Gubernatorial election) to get it on the ballot followed by a bare affirmative majority in the election. This didn’t happen in Massachusetts because it has no provision for amending the State Constitution independently of the legislature, a flaw when you compare it to other State and the Federal Constitutions. It would have to be submitted to the California Secretary of State 131 days prior to the November Election, which would be June 25th. I doubt there’s time to do that, unless some organization has been planning ahead.


39 posted on 05/15/2008 1:07:23 PM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonF

“I doubt there’s time to do that, unless some organization has been planning ahead.”

I bet there is plenty of time. That is not that many signatures considering the issue.


40 posted on 05/15/2008 1:09:36 PM PDT by HwyChile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 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.

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