fret not! ... the main guy on here thinks sarah palin is qualified to lead the country ... sooooo ...
Nice 10,000th post!
Yeah, I agree. It's really just evolution, baby. People change with time.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
How am I reaching. I really think it's funny how I responded to your linking this struggle with the African Americans struggle,... yet you and everyone else on here won't respond to my points. Please address them. How, if we change the historical definition once... can we not change it again to accomodate a man marrying an animal. Or a man marrying more than one female... or a man marrying someone underage. Unfortunately, the correct verbage does need to be established.
As I said, you're reaching. The examples don't require or deserve a response. Say I'm ducking your question, if you want. Fine by me. But they're ridiculous, everyone here can see they're ridiculous, and I believe you're smart enough to know they're ridiculous and are just trying to prove some point. So, yes; you are reaching.
I'm simply saying it does matter if you are in the minority. Because the voters/legislature/judges will be who would have the power to overturn this. We, in some form, vote them in. That's why being in the minority matters in this particular case.
And those who were voted in considered the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, a decision overturned by Proposition 8. I don't understand your logic here. Considering you're a conservative, by this example, everything Obama does in his administration is going to be the right thing for this country. After all, the majority voted him into office. Many of the most important battles in this country for the correct forward course began as minority movements. The abolitionist movement began as a minority movement. The suffrage movement for women began as a minority movement. Civil rights started as a minority movement. The point of a movement is to press the government to respect minority rights (since, after all, the entire point of the legislative aspects of the Constitution is to make sure that the rights of the majority do not overwhelm the rights of the minority). So, you did not address the important points of the issue, because whether a cause is in the minority or not is irrelevant. If the movement is sucessful, the minority becomes the majority; that will likely happen later.
The fact that I addressed this point already... gets so old. You all say the same thing. "how dare you blah blah blah" and don't read what I said. YOU should't SPEAK for an entire community of people if you aren't even one of them. PLEASE RE-READ THAT SENTENCE. That's the point. In your posts, you've been saying "the gay community wants this"... I'm saying, no in fact you are wrong. Part of the gay community may want that. But, part don't care. That's just a fact. If you were gay, I'd respect you "speaking for" that community a lot more. That's all.
I didn't say that the homosexual community DOES NOT care. You continue to put words in my mouth, as you do for the gay community. I'm not doing anything of what you said. I said the Political Left is feuling this fire. And they are. That's all.
Most gays I know don't give a shit. It's the political "left" that cares.
Nice try, saveup. How is that NOT speaking in some manner for the homosexual community? You said most gay people you know do not care, and then make a blanket statement that it is the political left that cares. I don't claim to speak for anyone; I speak for myself, and take the accumulated knowledge of every gay and lesbian individual and couple I know along with practically every gay and lesbian organization I know in the country and say that gay marriage is an important topic to the homosexual community. Accuse me of speaking for someone; that's fine, but don't bother trying to convince us that you didn't do the exact same thing when the words above clearly show otherwise. It smacks of hypocrisy.
Now, first of all, I don't think I've said anything along the lines of "how dare you", so quit reacting as if I maligned you somehow. I merely said you are wrong.
You did lose ground. Look at the results of Prop 8 for proof.
There's no point to having the argument if you don't address my points, which you did not. Address these; how much louder is the debate over gay marriage than it was twenty-five years ago? How many more states than that time recognize same-sex marriages? How many do or have tried to practice them compared to twenty-five years ago? We've lost ground if you analyze the debate of gay marriage using a two-week time span, which is useless. In the past twenty years, the debate has gained ground. In another twenty years, gay marriage will likely be a reality. As I said before, the American experience shows that our rights pertain to more and more individuals as the decades pass, not less people. Twenty years ago, no one even considered gay marriage as a possibility. Now it is not only a possibility, but in some instances and areas a reality. Anyone who considers that losing ground is ignoring the progression of the issue. Since we're talking about sides, "your" side is losing because the issue has come to the table. It's going to happen eventually, because rights are expanded, not denied.
Long story short, I have shown you evidence that you are arguing over a word. A word that has had a historical definition. You claim repeatively (and I bet you will again in this very thread) that the government came in over the course of the past twenty years and defined it. I say, no, the government was forced to define it because there was a political movement which was attempting to alter the historical definition. It's a word. A word that means a lot to people who value the term. It's a word, that whether you like it or not has religious implications. It's a word. The government should not have to define words. But, they do have to in order to uphold the sanctity of the word in this case.
As we've gone over 1 billion times.... the benefits are on the table. The gay community can receive every single benefit that a heterosexual couple can receive through civil unions. The word is the issue. The desire is a national affirmation.... which won't happen.
The problem with this entire argument is that you continue not to address anyone else's points. I believe many people have questioned you about the validity of a definition of marriage, considering majorities throughout history have defined it in very unsavory terms. Like interracial marriages, for example. Many people have pushed you on this topic, and instead of explaining why you think that instance is different than the example of same-sex marriage, you talk about how 'offensive' it is that the comparison is even made at all. And then you bemoan the fact that you have to repeat yourself over and over. You have to repeat yourself because you're not saying anything or addressing anybody's points. You still haven't responded to that statement, or many others.
You are still under some misguided strange assumption that the right of marriage is yours to bestow. You talk about how the government should not be involved in defining marriage to pertain to gay people. Guess what? It does until an undeniably essential reason to revoke that right is offered, and you've offered none. And until the states stop offering marriage liscences altogether, I think we can stop with the argument that the word marriage has "religious implications." If this is the case, than the solution has to be that no local government can issue any marriage liscences at all. That would be fair. But that's not going to happen, and you can't have it both ways. It can be all or nothing, and you've chosen some. By the measure of the laws this country was based upon, that's not an unacceptable answer. You say you've shown evidence; you've shown none. The evidence that matters is on my side. You can't only uphold the Constitution when it appeals to you. You say that your religious morals make you believe that gay marriage and acting upon homosexual urges is a sin. That's your personal belief, and though I disagree I have to respect it, misguided as I feel it is. That being said, keep such exclusionary religious beliefs the hell out of the law.
Also, we're all still waiting for the reasoning for when the majority of the South consider 'interracial marriage' an unnaceptable form of marriage, it was a wrong-headed practice that needed to be thrown into the dustbin of history, but same sex marriage is true because "the majority says so." I'd rather this time you wouldn't just say it's 'offensive' and ignore the issue.
But as I said before, there's less point arguing about the validity of this than many other issues. Unfortunately for the side of anti-gay marriage, it's going to happen. It's merely a question of when. I'd prefer to see it sooner rather than later, but either way it will be a reality by the time my children are my age, at the very most.
But as I said before, there's less point arguing about the validity of this than many other issues. Unfortunately for the side of anti-gay marriage, it's going to happen. It's merely a question of when. I'd prefer to see it sooner rather than later, but either way it will be a reality by the time my children are my age, at the very most.
exactly!
it's sad that's how it works, but it IS how it works....resistance, resistance, resistance...and then, acceptance. the word *marriage* belongs to NO one group, and thus it belongs to ALL. it would be awesome to see such acceptance in my lifetime, but if not...i am sure it will happen, someday.........
Unfortunately for the side of anti-gay marriage, it's going to happen. It's merely a question of when. I'd prefer to see it sooner rather than later, but either way it will be a reality by the time my children are my age, at the very most.
As I said, you're reaching. The examples don't require or deserve a response. Say I'm ducking your question, if you want. Fine by me. But they're ridiculous, everyone here can see they're ridiculous, and I believe you're smart enough to know they're ridiculous and are just trying to prove some point. So, yes; you are reaching.
And those who were voted in considered the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, a decision overturned by Proposition 8. I don't understand your logic here. Considering you're a conservative, by this example, everything Obama does in his administration is going to be the right thing for this country. After all, the majority voted him into office. Many of the most important battles in this country for the correct forward course began as minority movements. The abolitionist movement began as a minority movement. The suffrage movement for women began as a minority movement. Civil rights started as a minority movement. The point of a movement is to press the government to respect minority rights (since, after all, the entire point of the legislative aspects of the Constitution is to make sure that the rights of the majority do not overwhelm the rights of the minority). So, you did not address the important points of the issue, because whether a cause is in the minority or not is irrelevant. If the movement is sucessful, the minority becomes the majority; that will likely happen later.
Let's address your second point first...
Nice try, saveup. How is that NOT speaking in some manner for the homosexual community? You said most gay people you know do not care, and then make a blanket statement that it is the political left that cares. I don't claim to speak for anyone; I speak for myself, and take the accumulated knowledge of every gay and lesbian individual and couple I know along with practically every gay and lesbian organization I know in the country and say that gay marriage is an important topic to the homosexual community. Accuse me of speaking for someone; that's fine, but don't bother trying to convince us that you didn't do the exact same thing when the words above clearly show otherwise. It smacks of hypocrisy.
Now, first of all, I don't think I've said anything along the lines of "how dare you", so quit reacting as if I maligned you somehow. I merely said you are wrong.
There's no point to having the argument if you don't address my points, which you did not. Address these; how much louder is the debate over gay marriage than it was twenty-five years ago? How many more states than that time recognize same-sex marriages? How many do or have tried to practice them compared to twenty-five years ago? We've lost ground if you analyze the debate of gay marriage using a two-week time span, which is useless. In the past twenty years, the debate has gained ground. In another twenty years, gay marriage will likely be a reality. As I said before, the American experience shows that our rights pertain to more and more individuals as the decades pass, not less people. Twenty years ago, no one even considered gay marriage as a possibility. Now it is not only a possibility, but in some instances and areas a reality. Anyone who considers that losing ground is ignoring the progression of the issue. Since we're talking about sides, "your" side is losing because the issue has come to the table. It's going to happen eventually, because rights are expanded, not denied.
The problem with this entire argument is that you continue not to address anyone else's points. I believe many people have questioned you about the validity of a definition of marriage, considering majorities throughout history have defined it in very unsavory terms. Like interracial marriages, for example. Many people have pushed you on this topic, and instead of explaining why you think that instance is different than the example of same-sex marriage, you talk about how 'offensive' it is that the comparison is even made at all. And then you bemoan the fact that you have to repeat yourself over and over. You have to repeat yourself because you're not saying anything or addressing anybody's points. You still haven't responded to that statement, or many others.
You are still under some misguided strange assumption that the right of marriage is yours to bestow. You talk about how the government should not be involved in defining marriage to pertain to gay people. Guess what? It does until an undeniably essential reason to revoke that right is offered, and you've offered none. And until the states stop offering marriage liscences altogether, I think we can stop with the argument that the word marriage has "religious implications." If this is the case, than the solution has to be that no local government can issue any marriage liscences at all. That would be fair. But that's not going to happen, and you can't have it both ways. It can be all or nothing, and you've chosen some. By the measure of the laws this country was based upon, that's not an unacceptable answer. You say you've shown evidence; you've shown none. The evidence that matters is on my side. You can't only uphold the Constitution when it appeals to you. You say that your religious morals make you believe that gay marriage and acting upon homosexual urges is a sin. That's your personal belief, and though I disagree I have to respect it, misguided as I feel it is. That being said, keep such exclusionary religious beliefs the hell out of the law.
Also, we're all still waiting for the reasoning for when the majority of the South consider 'interracial marriage' an unnaceptable form of marriage, it was a wrong-headed practice that needed to be thrown into the dustbin of history, but same sex marriage is true because "the majority says so." I'd rather this time you wouldn't just say it's 'offensive' and ignore the issue.
But as I said before, there's less point arguing about the validity of this than many other issues. Unfortunately for the side of anti-gay marriage, it's going to happen. It's merely a question of when. I'd prefer to see it sooner rather than later, but either way it will be a reality by the time my children are my age, at the very most.
You said it far better than I could ever hope to.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The California high court will review legal challenges to Prop. 8. A hearing is set for March. Prior to a ruling, gay weddings will not be allowed to resume.
By Maura Dolan
2:16 PM PST, November 19, 2008
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling.
Meeting in closed session, the state high court asked litigants on both sides for more written arguments and said a hearing on the cases could come as early as March. The court also signaled its intention to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages, asking litigants to argue that question.
Today's decision to review the lawsuits against Proposition 8 did not reveal how the court was leaning. The court could have dismissed the suits, but both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 sought review to settle legal questions on a matter of statewide importance.
Some legal challengers also sought an order that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry until the cases were resolved, a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 supporters. Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno voted in the private conference to grant such a stay.
The order was signed by six of the court's seven justices. Justice Joyce Kennard did not sign, and the court said she would have invited a separate filing to determine the fate of existing same-sex marriages. She voted against granting review of the lawsuits
The court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage on May 15 in a 4-3 historic decision. Opponents of gay marriage gathered enough signatures to place Proposition 8 on the ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment.
Gay rights advocates argue that the measure was actually a constitutional revision, instead of a more limited amendment. A revision of the state Constitution can be placed before the voters only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.
Lawsuits to overturn the initiative contend it was a revision because it denied equal protection to a minority group and eviscerated a key constitutional guarantee. Supporters of Proposition 8 counter that it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage.
The court's previous rulings on similar lawsuits have been mixed. The court has upheld at least six initiatives and rejected only two that were challenged as illegal revisions.
Supporters of Proposition 8 have threatened to mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure. The court's members serve 12-year terms and appear on the ballot unopposed in retention elections.
Although the court tends to defer to voter sentiment on initiative challenges, it has overturned popular ballot measures in the past.
In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.
At the next judicial retention election, the margin of victory for the justices who appeared on the ballot declined by about 20%, said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies and an expert on the initiative process.
Federal courts overturned another contentious initiative, Proposition 187, the anti-immigration measure passed by voters. Unlike state judges, federal judges have lifetime tenure and do not face voters.
thanks for posting that cutback.
just as i and others expected....yay! just as it should be.
let us all hope true justice and equality for all prevails.
thanks for posting that cutback.
just as i and others expected....yay! just as it should be.
let us all hope true justice and equality for all prevails.
Right, that was expected. Should be interesting how they rule on the revision argument.
Of course, even if they don't strike it down, there are more avenues, but this is the best shot of it being taken down quickly before it really has any effect.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
Right, that was expected. Should be interesting how they rule on the revision argument.
Of course, even if they don't strike it down, there are more avenues, but this is the best shot of it being taken down quickly before it really has any effect.
i really, really, REALLY hope they shoot it down. what a MESSAGE that will send! also, what a true *victory* for equality....and for all those who think/thought gays should *settle*...or fight for less rights, a water-down term, etc.......it would be such a POSITIVE, and sure.....just the RIGHT course of action.
This is the most troubling paragraph in the story, by the way:
"Supporters of Proposition 8 have threatened to mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure. The court's members serve 12-year terms and appear on the ballot unopposed in retention elections."
The court is leaning 4-3 in favor of legalizing gay marriage, as it did earlier this year. Now because the Proposition 8 Nazis are threatening to politicize the court process, these justices are supposed to be fearful of their tenures? It's just not right. The court is supposed to be separate from politics and do what is right.
This is the reason it may not be overturned by the court at this stage. The Prop 8 people are leaving no stone unturned.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
This is the most troubling paragraph in the story, by the way:
"Supporters of Proposition 8 have threatened to mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure. The court's members serve 12-year terms and appear on the ballot unopposed in retention elections."
The court is leaning 4-3 in favor of legalizing gay marriage, as it did earlier this year. Now because the Proposition 8 Nazis are threatening to politicize the court process, these justices are supposed to be fearful of their tenures? It's just not right. The court is supposed to be separate from politics and do what is right.
This is the reason it may not be overturned by the court at this stage. The Prop 8 people are leaving no stone unturned.
that's fucked.
:mad:
i seriously hope they do NOT bow down to such pressures....what an absolute bastardization of justice it will be, and an evident flaw amongst flaws within the system.
Comments
Nice 10,000th post!
Yeah, I agree. It's really just evolution, baby. People change with time.
It's okay if you're straight, as long as you act gay in public.
As I said, you're reaching. The examples don't require or deserve a response. Say I'm ducking your question, if you want. Fine by me. But they're ridiculous, everyone here can see they're ridiculous, and I believe you're smart enough to know they're ridiculous and are just trying to prove some point. So, yes; you are reaching.
And those who were voted in considered the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, a decision overturned by Proposition 8. I don't understand your logic here. Considering you're a conservative, by this example, everything Obama does in his administration is going to be the right thing for this country. After all, the majority voted him into office. Many of the most important battles in this country for the correct forward course began as minority movements. The abolitionist movement began as a minority movement. The suffrage movement for women began as a minority movement. Civil rights started as a minority movement. The point of a movement is to press the government to respect minority rights (since, after all, the entire point of the legislative aspects of the Constitution is to make sure that the rights of the majority do not overwhelm the rights of the minority). So, you did not address the important points of the issue, because whether a cause is in the minority or not is irrelevant. If the movement is sucessful, the minority becomes the majority; that will likely happen later.
Let's address your second point first...
Nice try, saveup. How is that NOT speaking in some manner for the homosexual community? You said most gay people you know do not care, and then make a blanket statement that it is the political left that cares. I don't claim to speak for anyone; I speak for myself, and take the accumulated knowledge of every gay and lesbian individual and couple I know along with practically every gay and lesbian organization I know in the country and say that gay marriage is an important topic to the homosexual community. Accuse me of speaking for someone; that's fine, but don't bother trying to convince us that you didn't do the exact same thing when the words above clearly show otherwise. It smacks of hypocrisy.
Now, first of all, I don't think I've said anything along the lines of "how dare you", so quit reacting as if I maligned you somehow. I merely said you are wrong.
There's no point to having the argument if you don't address my points, which you did not. Address these; how much louder is the debate over gay marriage than it was twenty-five years ago? How many more states than that time recognize same-sex marriages? How many do or have tried to practice them compared to twenty-five years ago? We've lost ground if you analyze the debate of gay marriage using a two-week time span, which is useless. In the past twenty years, the debate has gained ground. In another twenty years, gay marriage will likely be a reality. As I said before, the American experience shows that our rights pertain to more and more individuals as the decades pass, not less people. Twenty years ago, no one even considered gay marriage as a possibility. Now it is not only a possibility, but in some instances and areas a reality. Anyone who considers that losing ground is ignoring the progression of the issue. Since we're talking about sides, "your" side is losing because the issue has come to the table. It's going to happen eventually, because rights are expanded, not denied.
The problem with this entire argument is that you continue not to address anyone else's points. I believe many people have questioned you about the validity of a definition of marriage, considering majorities throughout history have defined it in very unsavory terms. Like interracial marriages, for example. Many people have pushed you on this topic, and instead of explaining why you think that instance is different than the example of same-sex marriage, you talk about how 'offensive' it is that the comparison is even made at all. And then you bemoan the fact that you have to repeat yourself over and over. You have to repeat yourself because you're not saying anything or addressing anybody's points. You still haven't responded to that statement, or many others.
You are still under some misguided strange assumption that the right of marriage is yours to bestow. You talk about how the government should not be involved in defining marriage to pertain to gay people. Guess what? It does until an undeniably essential reason to revoke that right is offered, and you've offered none. And until the states stop offering marriage liscences altogether, I think we can stop with the argument that the word marriage has "religious implications." If this is the case, than the solution has to be that no local government can issue any marriage liscences at all. That would be fair. But that's not going to happen, and you can't have it both ways. It can be all or nothing, and you've chosen some. By the measure of the laws this country was based upon, that's not an unacceptable answer. You say you've shown evidence; you've shown none. The evidence that matters is on my side. You can't only uphold the Constitution when it appeals to you. You say that your religious morals make you believe that gay marriage and acting upon homosexual urges is a sin. That's your personal belief, and though I disagree I have to respect it, misguided as I feel it is. That being said, keep such exclusionary religious beliefs the hell out of the law.
Also, we're all still waiting for the reasoning for when the majority of the South consider 'interracial marriage' an unnaceptable form of marriage, it was a wrong-headed practice that needed to be thrown into the dustbin of history, but same sex marriage is true because "the majority says so." I'd rather this time you wouldn't just say it's 'offensive' and ignore the issue.
But as I said before, there's less point arguing about the validity of this than many other issues. Unfortunately for the side of anti-gay marriage, it's going to happen. It's merely a question of when. I'd prefer to see it sooner rather than later, but either way it will be a reality by the time my children are my age, at the very most.
exactly!
it's sad that's how it works, but it IS how it works....resistance, resistance, resistance...and then, acceptance. the word *marriage* belongs to NO one group, and thus it belongs to ALL. it would be awesome to see such acceptance in my lifetime, but if not...i am sure it will happen, someday.........
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Exactly. And why anyone would think this is the fundamentally baffling part of the argument.
Amen!
You said it far better than I could ever hope to.
By Maura Dolan
2:16 PM PST, November 19, 2008
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling.
Meeting in closed session, the state high court asked litigants on both sides for more written arguments and said a hearing on the cases could come as early as March. The court also signaled its intention to decide the fate of existing same-sex marriages, asking litigants to argue that question.
Today's decision to review the lawsuits against Proposition 8 did not reveal how the court was leaning. The court could have dismissed the suits, but both opponents and supporters of Proposition 8 sought review to settle legal questions on a matter of statewide importance.
Some legal challengers also sought an order that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry until the cases were resolved, a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown and Proposition 8 supporters. Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno voted in the private conference to grant such a stay.
The order was signed by six of the court's seven justices. Justice Joyce Kennard did not sign, and the court said she would have invited a separate filing to determine the fate of existing same-sex marriages. She voted against granting review of the lawsuits
The court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage on May 15 in a 4-3 historic decision. Opponents of gay marriage gathered enough signatures to place Proposition 8 on the ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment.
Gay rights advocates argue that the measure was actually a constitutional revision, instead of a more limited amendment. A revision of the state Constitution can be placed before the voters only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.
Lawsuits to overturn the initiative contend it was a revision because it denied equal protection to a minority group and eviscerated a key constitutional guarantee. Supporters of Proposition 8 counter that it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage.
The court's previous rulings on similar lawsuits have been mixed. The court has upheld at least six initiatives and rejected only two that were challenged as illegal revisions.
Supporters of Proposition 8 have threatened to mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure. The court's members serve 12-year terms and appear on the ballot unopposed in retention elections.
Although the court tends to defer to voter sentiment on initiative challenges, it has overturned popular ballot measures in the past.
In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin. Opponents challenged it on equal protection grounds, not as a constitutional revision.
At the next judicial retention election, the margin of victory for the justices who appeared on the ballot declined by about 20%, said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies and an expert on the initiative process.
Federal courts overturned another contentious initiative, Proposition 187, the anti-immigration measure passed by voters. Unlike state judges, federal judges have lifetime tenure and do not face voters.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-prop8-supreme-court20-2008nov20,0,4034655.story
just as i and others expected....yay! just as it should be.
let us all hope true justice and equality for all prevails.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Right, that was expected. Should be interesting how they rule on the revision argument.
Of course, even if they don't strike it down, there are more avenues, but this is the best shot of it being taken down quickly before it really has any effect.
i really, really, REALLY hope they shoot it down. what a MESSAGE that will send!
here's to hoping!
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
"Supporters of Proposition 8 have threatened to mount a recall of any justice who votes to overturn the measure. The court's members serve 12-year terms and appear on the ballot unopposed in retention elections."
The court is leaning 4-3 in favor of legalizing gay marriage, as it did earlier this year. Now because the Proposition 8 Nazis are threatening to politicize the court process, these justices are supposed to be fearful of their tenures? It's just not right. The court is supposed to be separate from politics and do what is right.
This is the reason it may not be overturned by the court at this stage. The Prop 8 people are leaving no stone unturned.
that's fucked.
:mad:
i seriously hope they do NOT bow down to such pressures....what an absolute bastardization of justice it will be, and an evident flaw amongst flaws within the system.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow