California Prop 8 Upheld
This story is just now breaking. The California Supreme Court has upheld Prop 8. Prop 8 defined marriage as between a man and woman. The 18,000 same-sex marriages performed between the original court decision and the Prop 8 vote will be allowed to stand. The vote was 6-1.
Prepare for more litigation. It is believed that Prop 8 proponents will file new lawsuits to overturn those marriages already performed, and I’m sure there will be more litigation from same-sex marriage supporters as well.
Disappointing news.
I guess the court ruled that the people who got married during the window are still married. That is interesting.
Anyway, the Republicans get their election day “get out the vote” wedge either way. Because they are terrible at governing, they need these issues to keep elections somewhat close.
OK, I guess I am just plain stupid! I cannot understand the argument that same-sex marriage is an attack on all of the other marriages. Will someone please explain this to me?
In the political environment we have, even in CA of all places, apparently, a mistake was made in the wording. Instead of “same-sex marriage”, the wording should have been “civil unions”, which is not nearly as inflammatory.
The vote was 6-1. Give it up.
Memo to liberals-the Dems are governing not Republicans and some of the issues are 10% unemployment, record deficits and bankruptcy of GM/Chrylser.
Ask Obama about Gay Marriage-he opposes it. Does that make him a homophobe or bigot?
Mike Protack
Yep, let’s just give up on civil rights, it’s just hard work.
Perry,
I have no clue what they mean. It’s just part of their hysteria, I think. For some, I think it’s a religious issue but that shouldn’t be the argument in a secular state. You should read one of the weirder arguments that came out this weekend. From what I can tell, some people don’t like it if others do things they don’t approve of, and think that should written into law.
The anti-same-sex marriage folks arguments boil down to:
gays are icky
it’s against my religion
OK so same sex marriage is illegal. It is illegal to make a decision of union with another person because of their sex. It should then be illegal to choose a religion, or to choose a school, or even choose a home. These are all choices of an individual that has no harm on any other person. These are choices made by a person who is trying to make the best decision to further their life and find happiness. If we are already choosing for two adults who they can fall in love with and create a union with then why should we even allow any kind of choices to be made? Should we then break all marriage vows and instead vote on who should be with who? Should interracial marriages be outlawed now too because kids from this union may face identity issues later on in life or face discrimination from both the African American and Caucasian communities?
This “great” nation is taking great measure to take a step backwards against the basis of its independence. How great is a nation that sought out independence due to oppression of choices when it oppresses similar choices of its people.
I say ban christianity along with same sex marriage. Christianity has long been controversial anyways the same way same sex marriage is today. More wars have been fought because of christian crusades in history than anything else thus making it dangerous to all. Any person of christian faith should be forced to believe in something else to ensure the safety of others. Of course, this is as ridiculous and ludicrous as banning same sex marriage yet I’m sure there would be more uproar because of it since there is so many more christians than gays or lesbians.
As a married couple my spouse and I, both of whom are 100% straight, find prop 8 to be the start of a long list of prejudism against minorities yet to come. I am saddened to see all the hard work of the Civil Rights Movement come to a waste and am disgusted with California citizens for their decision in this matter. To vote is to make a choice, using this choice to take away another person’s ability to make a choice because they are different is plain stupidity and abuse of that choice.
Civil Unions were already signed into law by the current governor in CA. The controversy of this shows that the left sees CU as a stepping stone not a destination.
The ruling was correct on both grounds. The CA Supreme court could not over rule the very constitution that gives it power. It would have been lawless and the justices would have surely been recalled.
It was also correct to let stand the existing marriages because we do not retroactively ban anything. Even though the court erred in the first place to allow it. That was not the fault of those who relied on its judgment.
Ah, once again Mike Protack shows everyone how much of a fucking idiot he really is. Mike, go de-ice your brain and leave the rest of us alone with your bullshit, homophobic, racist, crap. The people of Delaware have rejected you time and time again. And so do we!!!
Mike, WTF does GM and the financial mess the GOP left have to do with this miscarriage of justice? Please, explain that to us, if you can. Otherwise, go and fly a plane somewhere, far, far away from us.
“Will someone please explain this to me?”
Do you really want to know?
All I have to say to you naysayers who tell us to get over it is Romer v. Evans!!!
“Blacks only count as fractions of white people. Give it up.” – racist retards from American history.
“Women shouldn’t vote or drive because they have ovaries which make them emotionally crazy, unlike men. Give it up.” – misogynist men from American’s retarded history.
“The vote was 6-1. Give it up.” – Mike Protack, from present -day conservative, retarded Delaware.
these judges are bogus and gave a bogus ruling either gay marriage is legal or its not they should not be able to change the rules in the middle of the game for some. These judges are worse than the bigots trying to have it both ways
Wrong, they are not legal because the constitution says they are not. The original ruling was wrong, but those judges gave it their best try. It was not a matter of constitutional law. They were overruled. They had no choice. There authority comes from the state constitution. They can not over rule it.
If they would have ruled otherwise, they would have been lawless thugs. They would have violated the entire Republican form of government clause of the federal constitution which could have gone directly to the SCOUS. They would have been recalled. The lawless nature of the action would have turned the people against the movement they would have been trying to support.
David, as usual you don’t know what you’re talking about. Please confine your ignorance to your own blog and your own inferior kind — you know, conservatives.
““Blacks only count as fractions of white people. Give it up.” – racist retards from American history.”
Not to get off-topic, but that was actually an anti-slavery move. Read some Frederick Douglass.
…Republican form of government clause of the federal constitution…
OK, not being sarcastic, I don’t recall ever being taught this nugget of history. What is the Republican Form of Government Clause of the Federal Constitution?
The ruling on Prop 8 did not surprise me, what did surprise me was the marriages that took place last summer and early fall are still legitimate. Prop 8 passed only because of “Mormon Money” .
Mike Protack forget about it. Obama borrowed one from the republicans this time when he said he does not support gay marriage, you have to be able to read between the lines. So read between my lines.
Yes, I think letting the Prop 8 marriages stand means there’s going to be a lot of legal challenges coming. Now there’s 2 kinds of same-sex relationships.
They will fail. The reason the current marriages are valid is because the court allowed them. All adult same sex couples had an equal opportunity to wed. Some took advantage and some did not. That is not a constitutional basis for equal protection. Lawrence v. Texas stated that the right gays have under the liberty clause is in the right to choose with whom to have a sexual relationship not the legal recognition of such relationships.
The law which banned them has been upheld and is now constitutional doctrine.
Here is an example of why it works this way. I make a road one way street then one day a court says that one way streets are suspect under state law but is reversed on appeal. The people who got tickets before the ruling are still guilty. The people who got tickets after the reversal are still guilty. The people who traveled while it was still legal can’t get tickets for following the court’s judgment. It would be wrong to take their money for doing what they believed to be legal and was ruled legal at the time.
The court was asked to stay its ruling. It did not for political reasons. I believe that was reprehensible, but the 18,000 couples should not be punished and have taken away their legal marriages.
As much damage as I believe that allowing same sex marriage would have on the culture, I believe the damage to our sense of law and justice would be much greater if we over turn the basic principle that you can not make retroactive laws. 18K couples will not change the culture. The teaching in schools, the indoctrination of children, the legal weight of the government pushing sensitivity training, the transfer of resources from families to non families will not occur. That is where the damage would happen.
To the 18K, I say I hope that you find the happiness that you sought. I somehow doubt it, but I won’t be the one to take it away and upset the basis of American constitutional law and fair application of justice to do it. If a court can invalidate their currently legal marriages than it can so to mine or anything else retroactively.