CA Supreme Court Refuses To Block Gay Marriages

Fox News

[William McKinley]

They refused the Attorney General's request that they issue an injunction preventing further gay marriages to be conducted in San Francisco.

[Clintonfatigued]

If I'm not mistaken, the California state Supreme Court judges have to be confirmed by the state Senate. 'Rats have held that chamber since 1970.

[Lancey Howard]

The AG made a mistake.

Haha! That scumbag knew exactly what he was doing.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Charges must be raised first(AG).

[FairOpinion]

"IMO, this "homosexual marriage" campaign has been planned and coordinated by the Left and the Democrap Party to become a distraction from national security issues in the 2004 election. I hope this backfires on them with massive punitive results."

===

BINGO! I completely agree.
They will try to make the Republican party and Bush sound like they worry about "what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms" but not the major issues.

That is why I wish that conservatives would be smart enough to outsmart them, and not let the leftists make this a major issue. There will be plenty of time to discuss this AFTER Bush is re-elected.

For now we should be talking about Bush's successes in the War on Terror, but work remains, homeland security, and the economy.

[Lijahsbubbe]

So a violation of the state constitution is no problemo for the CA SupremesNope. Laws are only for the law-abiding. Not for illegals and judges.

[BJungNan]

You know, its not the fact that gay marriage is (or is not) becoming an inevitability. Its the way in which its being shoved down our throats. We no longer have government for the people. We now have government by four people. I don't like the fact the a handful of people, most of whom are not elected, are now dictating the law for us.

Turn about is fair play. The tactic has been employed, time to use it also.

QUESTION NO AUTHORITY
IGNORE THE JUDICIARY

[Bumber sticker]

[marshmallow]

We've just about completed the full picture, now.

We've ripped all reference to God from public buildings and made it an offence to pray in schools. We've made the killing of the unborn legal and we harass those who attempt to stop it. Now the same governments which refuse to allow prayer in schools are elevating sodomy to the same level as the God -given sacrament of marriage.

Sodom and Gomorrah is almost built. Time to turn our backs on this den of iniquity.

9/11 was meant to be a spiritual wake-up call for this country. We've responded by plunging deeper into godlessness and rebellion.

Tragic. Difficult times await us.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

I suggest that those who will have had their marriages invalidated will indeed have suffered harm.

Yes. This is at the crux of the conspiracy. What will the "courts" do when they finally get around to deciding the issue when it could undo the "marriage" of tens to hundreds of thousands. This is exactly the game plan, both to win the day or at the least to marshall opposition to GW in 2004. The Republicans had better act FAST.

[Imal]

The balloon has gone up.

[Kozak]

Since when does the JUDICIARY have ANYTHING at all to do with LAW ENFORCEMENT? What the hell is going on in California? Has everything I have ever learned about our Branches of Governmnet just been changed or is this just plain anarchy?

The AG knows that. He doesn't WANT the court to stop it, he can now sit back and claim he's powerless.

[ellery]

So what about the many people who marry with the intention of raising children, but who then find out they're infertile? My husband and I are in this situation -- do you propose to de-marry us?

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - BAD NEWS!

The CA Nazgul don't do their job. Idiot. Fools.

Let me know if you want on or off this list.

[reluctantwarrior]

Neither side has won or lost and basically this issue is a shill to keep the press from asking Jfn Kerry about his heroic service on Jane fondas couch. The court will hear this once there a case to be heard, someone has to show cause, issue a warrant serve it arrest the perp, conduct an arraignment, set a trial date, conduct voidoir(sp), hold the trial, appeal, appeal, but the sad part is that four courts have failed to issue injunctions until there is a trial/ show cause hearing

[budwiesest]

As it was, he passed the buck to the court.

People don't respect you 'till you stand up to them. Buck passing doesn't count. And when they're wrong, it's like having an invisible army behind you. (Just hope the day never comes when you're wrong.)

[Ol' Sparky]

The people through legislation should define what marriage is, not lawbreaking mayors and tryannical judges.

[Kozak]

I bet under equal protection any 2 non-married persons can get married.

Why limit it to 2? If three or four love each other and want to form a family on what LOGICAL GROUNDS can it be opposed if we remove the current definition of marriage?

[BikerNYC]

If three or four love each other and want to form a family on what LOGICAL GROUNDS can it be opposed if we remove the current definition of marriage?

Good point. But on what "logical grounds" should the definition remain the way it is? Yes there is public policy and tradition, but that ain't logic.

[mathurine]

What is going on in California and New York is a reincarnation of the doctrine of nullification, which led to the Civil War and a certain amount of hurt feelings, one might say. Just because a few mayors choose to flaunt the law, and, not unsurprisingly, a few ivy league judges or judges who wished they had been smart enough and rich enough and strange enough to be ivy league are nullificationists, the point remains that you can't nullify laws that are perfectly clear and constitutional, especially in the absence of a clear popular mandate. Throw the outlaw mayors in jail where they belong. Send the union army in to restore law and order and make these queers whistle dixie.

[budwiesest]

Why limit it to 2?

Super Eight Motel.

[budwiesest]

You had me going 'till the last half of your last sentence. Why'd ya have to call 'em queers? ouch.