PDA

View Full Version : California rightly upholds ban on homo marriage



stsinner
05-26-2009, 01:08 PM
I just heard on the radio that California SC is expected to announce shortly that they upheld the legal and binding vote of the people to keep marriage as it has always been-between one man and one woman. Very surprising and welcomed in this time of Socialism and radical judges legislating from the bench. I hope this sets precedent.

Unfortunately, I expect the Federal SC to get involved and legalize homosexual marriage nationwide because they have no morals and poor ethical standards and have totally abandoned the Christian foundation upon which this country was built.


Actually, here's the story. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E24K01&show_article=1)

Lars1701a
05-26-2009, 01:12 PM
WTF is with them allowing the ones that already happened to stay in effect?

Fracking wishy washy bullshit either you allow them or you void all of them. ( i am for the void option myself)_

stsinner
05-26-2009, 01:13 PM
WTF is with them allowing the ones that already happened to stay in effect?

Fracking wishy washy bullshit either you allow them or you void all of them. ( i am for the void option myself)_

That does seem rather stupid. Just like the homosexuals that are flocking to states like Mass to get married and then go back to their home states where homosexual marriage isn't recognized.. It's like a petulant brat mentality.

samurai
05-26-2009, 01:14 PM
Just saw the same thing on the Fox News website. They didn't annul the marriages that had already been performed, but in a constructionist ruling, I wouldn't expect them too (that would mean retroactively affecting people). A good decision, IMO, the rights of the voters were upheld.

FlaGator
05-26-2009, 02:35 PM
WTF is with them allowing the ones that already happened to stay in effect?

Fracking wishy washy bullshit either you allow them or you void all of them. ( i am for the void option myself)_

Would you have rather had them quash the amendment too for consistancy's sake?

wilbur
05-26-2009, 02:39 PM
That does seem rather stupid. Just like the homosexuals that are flocking to states like Mass to get married and then go back to their home states where homosexual marriage isn't recognized.. It's like a petulant brat mentality.


That makes no difference... states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, thanks to Clinton.

Odysseus
05-26-2009, 03:11 PM
Just saw the same thing on the Fox News website. They didn't annul the marriages that had already been performed, but in a constructionist ruling, I wouldn't expect them too (that would mean retroactively affecting people). A good decision, IMO, the rights of the voters were upheld.

The question before the court was not whether the marriages are valid, but whether the amendment is. Now that this has been decided, assuming that the CA Secretary of State doesn't revoke the licences, a separate petition will have to be filed before the court can assume jurisdiction over the marriages that have been performed. If the SOS does revoke the licenses, then expect a petition to grant a stay and a request to invalidate the revocation.

I should've been a lawyer... :D

Rockntractor
05-26-2009, 03:20 PM
I'm ready for a week or two of not discussing fudgepackers. We have covered everything and then some.

AlmostThere
05-26-2009, 06:19 PM
With several other states giving the OK to SSM, I would have bet the farm that the SC of CA would have killed Prop 8. I am truly flabbergasted. :eek::eek:

Rockntractor
05-26-2009, 06:22 PM
Good call. We'll spend the next week or two discussing how it seems that every time the GOP is trying 'rally the base', it doesn't shove issues like immigration and taxation into the spotlight, it's gay marriage.

A side topic would be discussing why the party loyal aren't demanding that the RNC start adopting an actual platform. Right now, they're pretty happy with "Obama is bad, gays are worse, if Obama turns out to be gay, Texas will secede."
Now would be a great time for senate republicans to refuse to confirm Obamas supreme court justice pick.

Space Gravy
05-26-2009, 06:29 PM
I'm ready for a week or two of not discussing fudgepackers. We have covered everything and then some.

Testify.

Rockntractor
05-26-2009, 06:39 PM
They have to have at least one republican sign on before she can go on to confirmation.

AlmostThere
05-26-2009, 07:37 PM
OK you legal minds, with 18,000 marriages allowed to stand, couldn't a not-married-yet couple argue that preventing them from marrying now is denying them equal protection under the law? Is the Supreme Court of CA just intentionally setting themselves up to be reversed by the Feds under the 14th amendment? It worked for segregation.

Odysseus
05-26-2009, 09:32 PM
Good call. We'll spend the next week or two discussing how it seems that every time the GOP is trying 'rally the base', it doesn't shove issues like immigration and taxation into the spotlight, it's gay marriage.

A side topic would be discussing why the party loyal aren't demanding that the RNC start adopting an actual platform. Right now, they're pretty happy with "Obama is bad, gays are worse, if Obama turns out to be gay, Texas will secede."
It's not the GOP that drags it out, it's a response to the liberals who try to impose it. Every time gay marriage is imposed by a court, it's defeated by popular vote.

They have to have at least one republican sign on before she can go on to confirmation.
Only if the Republicans filibuster the vote, which was how the Democrats blocked Bush appointments. The Republicans opposed the abuse of the filibuster and threatened to change the rules, turning it into a straight up/down vote on the nominee with no requirement for cloture, the so-called "nuclear option" that led to the Gang of 14 deal. Democrats won't hesitate to impose that rule if it allows them to pursue their agenda.

OK you legal minds, with 18,000 marriages allowed to stand, couldn't a not-married-yet couple argue that preventing them from marrying now is denying them equal protection under the law? Is the Supreme Court of CA just intentionally setting themselves up to be reversed by the Feds under the 14th amendment? It worked for segregation.
The marriages weren't allowed to stand. The court lacked standing to invalidate them. Someone has to petition the court to annul those marriages before it can act.

BadCat
05-26-2009, 09:35 PM
Where can I sign that petition?

Shannon
05-26-2009, 09:37 PM
It's not the GOP that drags it out, it's a response to the liberals who try to impose it. Every time gay marriage is imposed by a court, it's defeated by popular vote.

Only if the Republicans filibuster the vote, which was how the Democrats blocked Bush appointments. The Republicans opposed the abuse of the filibuster and threatened to change the rules, turning it into a straight up/down vote on the nominee with no requirement for cloture, the so-called "nuclear option" that led to the Gang of 14 deal. Democrats won't hesitate to impose that rule if it allows them to pursue their agenda.

The marriages weren't allowed to stand. The court lacked standing to invalidate them. Someone has to petition the court to annul those marriages before it can act.

Ellen is going to bawl on her show.:D

Rockntractor
05-26-2009, 09:41 PM
Ellen is going to bawl on her show.:D
Oh no! Water leaking from the dike!

Bubba Dawg
05-26-2009, 10:10 PM
Good on the California Supreme Court. They based the decision on the law which is what they should have done. When the law was one thing, those 18 thousand married, but then the law changed.

Thing is, can the equal protection issue be brought up on those who weren't in the 18 thousand? I guess this can wind up in the US Supreme Court.

Hold on to your bootstraps.

AlmostThere
05-26-2009, 10:13 PM
The marriages weren't allowed to stand. The court lacked standing to invalidate them. Someone has to petition the court to annul those marriages before it can act.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF

From page 13:


Finally, we consider whether Proposition 8 affects the validity of the marriages of same-sex couples that were performed prior to the adoption of Proposition 8. Applying well-established legal principles pertinent to the question whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to apply prospectively or retroactively, we conclude that the new section cannot properly be interpreted to apply retroactively. Accordingly, the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in this state.

Sounds pretty definitive to me.

megimoo
05-26-2009, 10:43 PM
The big gay shrug Sorry, enemies of gay marriage. Prop 8 or no, you've already lost

Here's a fun thing to do to calm your frazzled, saddened nerves in the wake of the CA Supreme Court's very unfortunate, but also merely annoying and karmically fleeting Proposition 8 decision: Head on down to your local high school -- hell, make it a junior high or even an elementary -- and take yourself an informal survey. Ask the various wary, bepimpled youth of Generation Tweet what they think about those scary gay people getting married.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/05/27/notes052709.DTL&tsp=1

stsinner
05-26-2009, 11:20 PM
The big gay shrug Sorry, enemies of gay marriage. Prop 8 or no, you've already lost

Here's a fun thing to do to calm your frazzled, saddened nerves in the wake of the CA Supreme Court's very unfortunate, but also merely annoying and karmically fleeting Proposition 8 decision: Head on down to your local high school -- hell, make it a junior high or even an elementary -- and take yourself an informal survey. Ask the various wary, bepimpled youth of Generation Tweet what they think about those scary gay people getting married.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2009/05/27/notes052709.DTL&tsp=1

Obviously written by a homosexual. They have no respect for the law and then wonder why we're tired of seeing their whining asses on TV.

Odysseus
05-27-2009, 05:04 PM
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF
From page 13:
Sounds pretty definitive to me.

They have to be kidding. The marriages were conducted in violation of state law and were further rendered unlawful by amendment. That would be like passing the 13th through 15th Amendments, but letting people keep their slaves.

AlmostThere
05-27-2009, 09:57 PM
They have to be kidding. The marriages were conducted in violation of state law and were further rendered unlawful by amendment. That would be like passing the 13th through 15th Amendments, but letting people keep their slaves.

7 people playing Solomon for a day?

Give thy servant therefore an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to judge this thy great people? 1 Kings 3:9