California Supreme Court Set To Decide On Prop 8
In November, voters in California passed Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage. Tuesday, the Supreme Court of that state decides whether revoking the right of gays to marry is constitutional, and also rules on what happens to those who got married there when it was legal. 18,000 same-sex couples married between the time their unions were legalized in June and the November vote.
…opponents of same-sex marriage argue that it is illogical to continue to recognize marriages that can no longer be legally performed here.
Andrew P. Pugno, the general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, the leading group behind Proposition 8, said that it was meant to be “a blanket unqualified statement that applies to all marriages.” Allowing some same-sex marriages to stand, he said, would “create two classes of gay couples” in the state.
Ironic that Pugno is concerned about creating “two classes of gay couples”, but not two classes of couples, period.
Hopefully justice will be done.
These anti-Gay Rights people disgust me. I can only hope the Supreme Court will side with justice and tyranny.
May 25th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I can only hope the Supreme Court will side with justice and tyranny.
Which? Justice or with tyranny?
libpatriot Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 3:30 am
“Hopefully justice…”
I’m guessing that Eric intended to put the word “against” before the word “tyranny”.
EricG Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Whoops, call me stupid.
Obviously … yea.
Tyranny is strong, but I see this as a civil rights issue.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:35 am
every day ericg…every day.
Robert Blair Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 5:30 am
I believe the correct idea of that post is that a judicial branch is to save the minority from the tyranny of the majority. However, in this case, I believe the most that should be expected is that those who are already married will be viewed as married. I believe the court will not interfere with the election results; largely because of the California constitution, amendments, and relevant statutes all suggest a wide latitude for the electorate to make wholesale changes in the basice structures of the California governess.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Robert..that was amazingly clairvoyent…bravo!
libpatriot Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Agreed, Guido. Robert called the outcome so accurately that it’s spooky!
Say, Robert, can I borrow your crystal ball? Just want to check the outcome of a few sports events coming up in the next few weeks…Promise I’ll give it right back!
May 25th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
“…it is illogical to…”
The most irrelevant argument of this or any other human epoch.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Gay Judges should be recalled regardless of Prop 8 ruling. There is no gay marriage and the court cannot change the constitution without an amendment. 8 years of this crap. Get rid of civil unions and child adoption for gays. This will get them out of the state and force the northeast out of the Union with their gays. Join the American Independent Party to end the gay lifestyle in CA and end abortion. Website:
http://www.selfgovernment.us/
Allan Keyes 2008 prez canditate
May 26th, 2009 at 2:06 am
What’s really ironic is that you favor redefining marriage to accommodate homosexuals, but that you don’t favor redefining marriage to accommodate polygamists……
Your interpretation of marriage is arbitrary concerning sexual orientation, but rigid in it’s application…..
Why limit the number of participant’s???
On what logical basis do you arrive at the conclusion that the marriage covenant should be restricted to only pairs?
Um Cara Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 10:04 am
On what logical basis do you arrive at the conclusion that the marriage covenant should be restricted to only pairs?
Not enough chicks to go around if one dude starts hording all of them.
craig7120 Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Or since my dog cant talk that part of the vow ‘I do’ cant be substituted with ‘gimmie ur paw’ right?
Opps wrong argument, insert above remark when it starts to spiral in that direction.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 27th, 2009 at 4:39 am
Polygamy is only illegal because people hate Mormons…
May 26th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Didn’t they vote to amend the state constitution? If so, then how in the world can a court overturn and democratically voted amendment to a constitution?
I think the court will uphold this decision by the voters. Let’s pray that they do.
Daddio Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Yep, I was right. 6-1 to uphold the decision by the voters of California. A great victory in California. I applaud all the hard work done there by those who supported Prop 8 and got your message out.
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!
Um Cara Reply:
May 26th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I agree that the court was correct in upholding the constitutional amendment. California law supports the ability for the voters to write law, essentially.
They have the best medical marijuana laws, for example, due to the way Californian law functions.
It will be a couple years before a new amendment is passed to support gay marriage in California, unfortunately Californian gays will have to wait just a bit longer.
May 26th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Once more….I was born gay
(a) I was not molested as a child
(b) I did not come from a dysfunctional family (and Yes,my father paid alot of attention to me..Gee, he even played basketball with me.
(c) I was not trying to rebel against society
If scientists were looking for “the straight gene” there would be controversey over the validity of the reserarch. It is the heterosexual supremacist point of view that their “beauty is only in the eye of their beholder.”I was always this way. True, people sometimes engage in behaviour that is contrary to their sexual orientation, but that issue is for a different time.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:08 am