Cali Supreme Court to Hear Gay Marriage Opponents’ Prop 8 Arguments
- Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:02am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
SAN FRANCISCO (The Blaze/AP) — When it comes to California’s gay marriage debate, the drama keeps unfolding. Following the battle over a presiding judge’s sexuality earlier this summer, the fight over the highly-contentious Proposition 8 continues to forge on.
The state’s same-sex marriage ban faces its next legal test Tuesday when the state’s highest court attempts to shed light on whether the voter-approved measure’s backers have legal authority to appeal the federal ruling that overturned Proposition 8.
The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear an hour of arguments on that question, which could prove crucial to the future of the voter-approved ban. The federal appeals court that is considering the initiative’s constitutionality wants the state court to weigh in on the matter before it issues its decision.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has expressed doubts about the ability of Proposition 8‘s sponsors to challenge the lower court ruling absent the involvement of California’s governor or attorney general, both of whom refused to appeal a federal judge‘s August 2010 decision striking down the ban as a violation of gay Californians’ civil rights.
The court punted the question to the California Supreme Court earlier this year, saying it was a matter of state law.
Lawyers for the coalition of religious and conservative groups that qualified Proposition 8 for the November 2008 ballot maintain they are legally eligible to represent the majority of California voters who approved the same-sex marriage ban. They argue that because California has such a vigorous citizen’s initiative process, it would not make sense for elected officials to effectively veto measures by not defending them in court.
“This is a pivotal hearing for us as we continue to fight to uphold the People’s vote to restore traditional marriage in California against these ferocious attacks,” Andy Pugno, legal counsel for the Proposition 8 coalition said in a letter to supporters last week. “We simply cannot allow our opponents to manipulate the legal system to the point where there is nobody left to defend the People!”
Lawyers for the two same-sex couples who successfully sued to have Proposition 8 thrown out are arguing that ballot initiative proponents cannot demonstrate that would be uniquely harmed if the same-sex marriage ban is declared unconstitutional. Demonstrating a concrete and particularized harm is the standard parties ordinarily have to meet to be eligible to wage an appeal in federal court.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris has submitted a brief saying that in her interpretation, proponents of successful ballot initiatives do not have the right to defend their measures in court. Harris is a Democrat who succeeded Gov. Jerry Brown in January as attorney general.
If the Supreme Court says the ban’s proponents did not have standing to appeal, and if the 9th Circuit and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately agree, it would clear the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California because former Chief U.S. Vaughn Walker’s verdict would stand. But such an outcome would also limit the potential impact of the closely watched catch because it would prevent higher courts from reaching its constitutional merits.
“What the court has before it are questions about how the state’s direct democracy rules should be understood to sync with its constitutionally-based ideas of representative government,” Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Marc Spindelman. “Who speaks for the people and the state – and when? Can unelected officials determine how state law will be defended? Should they be allowed to defend the law when state officials elected by the people to represent them will not? Are state officials who refuse to defend a legal measure on appeal practically exercising a veto right that the rules of direct democracy in California do not allow?
Proposition 8 reinstated a ban on same-sex marriages in California by amending the state Constitution to supersede a California Supreme Court ruling that had legalized gay unions five months earlier. The Williams Institute, a think tank on sexual orientation and the law at the University of California, Los Angeles, has estimated that 18,000 couples tied the knot during the brief window.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 413 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 376 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 413 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 376 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 413 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (104)
MarketsClear
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:00amThis is great! The tenants of common law that have been passed down through the ages are being used to fight back against majoritarian tyranny. Unless the theocrats can show that they are uniquely harmed by the allowance of gay marriage (which they can’t), then they have no standing. Legally, the theocrats have a better shot at maintaining prop 8 by trying to convince the state to defend it.
Report Post »greensteam
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 4:06pmwas that sarcasm? because otherwise it didnt make sense.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 5:57pm“tenants”? LOL….try “TENETS” you idiot. Trying to lecture us on “tenants of common law” (sic) and you don‘t even know what you’re talking about. This is the harm “Gay Inc” does to our society. Legislating from the bench. Overturning popular vote. I recall a concentrated campaign by the homosexual lobby to target and besmirch black people in California after they believed it was black people were the largest demographic to vote against homosexual marriage. I recall footage of an old woman walking into a pro Prop8 rally expressing her disagreement and being physically and verbally abused by the mob of angry homosexuals. Creepy and disgusting little people.
I’ll tell you exactly where your “theocrats” will be harmed by the homosexual lobby. Any institution or enterprise that refuses to marry them or recognize any marriage by them, will be sued for discrimination..all for the fantasy of homosexuals to feel “normal”.
FATTYDAD
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:55pmWouldn’t you rather the 3rd gendered people have monogomous sex in their homes than having to do it anonomously behind a dumpster or in a public restroom? Treat them like people and they will act like people. Let them have the restraint of marriage.
Report Post »sourdoughboy
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:51amI wonder how many of those 18,000 have found themselves in Family Court so far? I don’t wish that on anyone, not even those poor sensitive people who want the State and Churches to sanction their sins.
Report Post »mikeytoonz
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:39amMarine 1: Have you ever read the New Testament?
Report Post »Centralsville
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:32amCalifornia is dead.
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:25amGo ahead and approve it! I’ll be waiting for the massive quake in my bunker!
Report Post »LOJ
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:22amI would love to see the laws upheld and especially from the voters who overwhelmingly voted down Gay Marriage. Ted Olson came in and disregarded the Will of the Elected Body as well as a rogue Judge.
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:25am2 elections, by landslide, should be enough.
Report Post »MarketsClear
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 4:51pm@Ruler4You
52/48 a landslide? If you held the prop 8 vote in california today, I bed it would turn out the other way. However, you cannot vote on civil rights. These religious types don’t understand that the only kind of marriage government can sanction is civil marriage. Civil marriage is a legal contract between two people; it has nothing to do with religion. Religious marriage is a religious rite and has nothing to do with government. Stop trying to limit people’s right to freely enter into contract so you can mandate the restrictions of your version of religious marriage onto civil marriage.
Report Post »Briggston
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:01amI think this is actually the biggest form of hypocrisy in the world. If you look at these signs in this picture they show a level of ignorance and bigotry towards a specific religion because they dared speak out on an moral issue. Last I checked 52% of the state of California is not Mormon in fact they aren’t even the dominant faith. It’s the Catholic church but I see no signs saying keep your catechism of my rights. Or don’t wrap your rosary around my freedom. Whats the matter Homosexual community found a convenient scapegoat for your intolerance? I think its damn hypocritical how in New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut they can accept Gay marriage according to the law of the land and that is termed the “Will of the People” or “True Democracy” not Tyranny of the Minority forcing their beliefs on the Majority But in California when they elect according to the law of the land to reject your position it is oppression, unconstitutional, and bigotry. Wow what a dual standard law interpretation. You vandalize property, disrespect the rights of others to disagree with you and purposely go out of your way to mock others who don’t believe like you do and then have the gall to talk of intolerance? That’s like the Black panthers or the KKK accusing the rest of the population who oppose them of being racists.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:30amwell stated
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:47pmUntil they learn to show some respect, then I am under absolutely no obligation to treat them any better. They think life for them has been hard, try being the Mormon kid growing up in Evangelical land.
Report Post »turkey13
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:50amWe The People don’t exist anymore! More and more you see the folks in states vote a law in and the courts say Nope. Look at Arizona passing imigration law and not only get shot down but sued by the president. The folks in California spoke about the queers getting married but a queer judge overrides the people.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:47amMike, you are right about government not getting involved in marriage – it should be left up to Churches. The government should also not use marriage to confer rights such as inheritance and/or hospital visitation, healthcare, etc.
I’m sure some athiests get married, so we would still need some sort of justice-of-the-peace ceremony for those who do not wish to have a Church wedding.
Before the government got in the business of marriage, were all those people living in sin? (Those who just got married in Churches / without the government’s blessing?)
I personally think they have made their own “lifetime” commitments, but, that they want the “benefits” that come from being legally “married”. If government got out of the marriage business, and there were no “benefits” given to married couples, then this would be a non-issue.
We can certainly raise questions on morality, but, the laws clearly favor couples that are legally married – which means they do not have all the rights we do.
The government sees marriage as nothing more than a contract between two people. Forbidding someone from entering into a contract with another individual based on their gender is obviously wrong. WE see marriage as much more – and it is – so, WE need to be marrying people in our own Churches whom WE deem appropriate to marry. Many ministers refuse to perform ceremonies if they are not convinced of the couple’s reason for marrying.
Report Post ».
.
.
MarketsClear
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:11amI absolutely agree. There are two types of marriage that the theocrats have trouble separating: civil marriage and religious marriage. Just as you said, civil marriage is a contract between two people. To prohibit people to freely enter into contract because of gender causes injury to liberty. Religious marriage is whatever churches and religious people decide it is. It is a very personal commitment, not to be regulated by government. While you do not have to respect everyone’s religious marriages, you do have to respect the contract of civil marriage if you respect the rule of law.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 6:06pmLOL..yes MARKETSCLEAR..tell us all about your “learned” distinctions between “civil and religious” after you cited “tenants of common law” (sic) earlier. Do those “tenants” pay a lot for rent? It‘s always wise to pay heed to an idiot such as yourself who has absolutely no idea about their talking about but prattles off rote and talking points as they’ve been indocrinated to do- isn’t it MARKETSCLEAR? It‘s always a good idea to listen to a buffoon like you isn’t it?
Report Post »Mike Westfall No Hiding
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 1:33pmAgree with you on your points. The only thing I will point counter is that marraige comes with some benefits and some detriments to those recognized as married under the law. Higher income tax rates and the potential for alimony come to mind. Generally speaking please note that if a man and a woman, not two men or two women, who live together and share assets long enough, decide to not get legally married, the IRS and other government institutions will deem them to be married for all practical purposes.
Report Post »Socialism_Is_The_New_Black
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:41amI have a question on the second photo. One guy is holding a sign that states “you have two wives I want one husband”. Where in the country is this a legal reality?
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 10:19amNowhere, of course, but “legal reality” is not the issue for that guy — he lives in a fantasyland where men can “marry” other men. No matter what civil law may be passed, such a “marriage” is a fantasy. Just as before the Civil War, some people in America thought that they “owned” others — but they never did “own” anyone, they merely “held” them as slaves. The civil “law” was not the reality then and there, just as the civil “law” is not the reality in Massachusetts.
Report Post »shirtsbyeric
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 11:08amThe 2 wives sign is for Obama’s dad. He was a bigamist and Obama has stood firmly against gay marriage.
Report Post »CHEWYRUNTS
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 2:41amthey are rioting against the mormon church. most peope who are uneducated about the teachings of the mormon church believe in all sorts of nonsense. like, “mormons have more than one wife, or mormons have horns, or mormons blah blah blah”.
the point is, all the churches of Jesus Christ are against gay marriage, for some reason the Gay community funds a reason to attack the Mormon church over any other church in the area.
so to answer your question, the signs depicted in the picture are supposed to be directed at the Mormon church.
Report Post »Iowa_Biker
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:41amI don’t know what options are available to those of you who reside in California. I can however tell you what we did to the judges here in Iowa that pushed their agenda over the will of the people. We are still trying to clean up the mess, and I am hopeful that all will be put straight in good time. Moral of the story – Educate yourself! Know what you stand for! Make an intelligent and informed decision when the time comes!
Report Post »pedwards59
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:38am..Homosexuality was diagnosed as a mental illness up through the 1960′s
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 12:14pmI’m not sure if it is a significant distinction, but I think it was classified as a “personality disorder.”
Report Post »ghost-of-elvis
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 4:37pmIt is as much or more of a mental illness than most of the conditions they prescribe their “legal, safe, doctor approved” drugs on. Drug dealers making money all over the world from afghanistan to washington. If you are a woman who starves herself because you see your body as something it obviously is not then you have a mental illness, according to our doctors. If a man wears a dress and wig because he sees his body as something it obviously is not and I say they have a mental illness, according to the same thinking accepted medically nevermind what God thinks, then I am in the wrong. How is that?
Report Post »DanWesson455
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:37am@SafeguardOurLiberty
Report Post »Class vs. Sexuality: The Proposition 8 Vote
The measure was approved by 52 percent of voters and has sparked not only visible protests across the nation but animosity between the Gay community and the Black and Hispanic communities, which endorsed the ban. Exit polls indicated that 70 percent of black voters supported Proposition 8, while 53 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of whites and Asian Americans voted for the measure.
Maybe you would LIKE TO RE_WRITE your post?
Mike Westfall No Hiding
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:32amMajority rule is generally not a good thing. It allows for leaders to whip up frenzy against the minority. This is the second time California passed this law / amendment. The first time it was struck down as being a discriminatory law. It was repassed as an amendment to the state’s constitution directly addressing the concerns raised in the opinion from the first repeal.
Even though the goal posts are continually moved, lets call it as is. The state should not be in the business of regulating marraige period. Its a promise between a man and a woman with God’s blessing. Do you need a license for this just like you do to register dog ownership…. No.
The whole gay marraige movement started in the 80′s to get health coverage for their partners who were getting sick from the dangerous lifestyles they engaged. It has since morphed into something that progressives can use to divide people against each other.
Report Post »NUTN2SAY
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:27amOnly in a world where the government of that world has gone insane with madness will the normal people of that world have to tolerate this nonsense!
Heterosexuals are on this planet for the purpose of procreation of the human species. Heterosexuals are on this planet to promote life! Not death like the male homosexual is now doing because they can’t keep their pants zipped!
Then all the while the government is encouraging this threat to the heterosexual human being. The government is telling the heterosexual tax paying human being that it is they who must pay for the medical bills and medical research of the disease spreading homosexual. This only encourages the disease spreading homosexual to engage in their perverse activity even more. The more medicine they get the more they will play!
HETEROSEXUALITY IS ULTIMATELY ALL ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.
HOMOSEXUALITY IS ULTIMATELY ALL ABOUT THE DEVASTATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES.
THE GOVERNMENT OF AMERICA HAS SOLD OUT THE HUMAN SPECIES IN FAVOR OF A HOMOSEXUAL VOTE!
pedwards59
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:39amYou have hit the nail squarely on the head!
Report Post »olddog
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:20amGays and what they do and think are queer to me, I guess that’s where the term came from. They have the same right of everyone in this country but actually want more rights than the rest of us.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:35amYou know as well as everyone, they do not have the same rights, and that is what all this is about.
What if the government ONLY allowed “gay marriage” and not regular marriage – would YOU be demanding the right to get married to someone of the opposite sex? OF COURSE YOU WOULD ! WE ALL WOULD ! !
So, stop hiding behind platitudes and slogans, and just admit you don’t want them to have the right to get married. At least then, you will not come off as dishonest.
Jefferson was right – “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what business is it of mine?”
Our federal government has absolutely NO BUSINESS being involved in marriage of any kind!!!
Report Post »Marriage is a religious construct, and should be dealt with by individual religions – marriage should NOT be used to confer rights such as inheritance and/or family visitation rights, etc.
States, on the other hand, are free to do as THEIR CITIZENS choose. It is called states’ rights.
NOWHERE in the Constitution does it address marriage – and ALL powers not EXPLICITLY conveyed to the federal government are reserved to the INDIVIDUAL and to the STATES.
The 10th Amendment is an ABOMINATION and is ABUSED by Congress to RULE over us.
MAN, does it need fixing!
MTZ.LDRSHIP
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:46am@tomferrari I think your own argument is what will be your own undoing. If marriage is solely a religious construct, which I believe it is, then you’re right, the gov’t. has no involvement in the issue. But then, why does the homosexual movement ‘demand’ that the gov‘t at all levels ’recognize‘ their unions as ’valid ones’? If two believe that they are married, then let them stay committed to each other monogamously. God will be their ultimate judge of ‘right or wrong’. Leave it to each individual or institution to decide if they will ‘allow’ certain ‘relationships’ to be recognized (hospitals, insurance companies, etc.) If they don’t want to, then neither you, the movement, nor gov’t. can then mandate that they do…
Report Post »NuffSaid
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:08amDon’t hold out any hope here, America. The whole state government of Californicate sucks.
Report Post »love the kids
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:53amWhy is it so many people in the US are for democracy in other countries, but when a majority of people in the US decide something, the Govt. is asked to step in and throw that decision out and DICTATE to the people what they are to do?
Report Post »ashestoashes
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:11amHow could the government go after the churches for refusing to marry these abominators? If these pastors are true men of God, it won’t matter, because they will abide by the Word of God, not what the government tells them that they have to do. We as Christians are to obey the government except when the government oversteps their authority with God. We obey God first and foremost, as His ways are righteous. Don’t get me wrong..if God said that being a homosexual was okay..then I would have no problem with it…but He doesn’t , he says that it is something that he hates.
SafeguardOurLiberty
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:13amIf you are talking about the majority of people in the US and about gay marriage, 52% of the American people polled say that gays should have the right to marry like everyone else. In CA the people that voted in Proposition were mostly extreme right Christians that were rallied to vote. That is not a true representation of US citizens.
Report Post »DanWesson455
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:21am@SafeguardOurLiberty:
Report Post »Not so. The heavy voting against Queer Marriage came from People of Color. Hispanics and Blacks.
They were the highest of % voters against this abomination.
let us prey
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:24amProposition were mostly extreme right Christians that were rallied to vote. That is not a true representation of US citizens.
Report Post »Sounds a lot like the presidential election. Not a true representation of the American people.
biohazard23
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:26am@SafeguardYourStupidity, sure sure, and if you honestly believe that….. Well, it must be your lucky day because you have won the Singapore lottery and if you would just kindly forward us a small processing fee to cover the monetary transfer to your account…. I’m sure that friendly and helpful bank manager in Nigeria will be willing to help you out since you also have that substantial inheritance coming to you from some obscure uncle in the Congo….. Then you can also purchase a lovely waterfront condo I have for sale in Phoenix, AZ…. It’s right next to the bridge that comes with it…..
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:49amWhat civil rights are they trying to restore? So if they have not been deprived of the law’s equal protection [right to marry] then they are insisting that same sex union is “marriage”? Is disguising their agenda in civil rights language make it sound better than the truth? It sounds like they do not want to accept marriage on the same terms that is available to all others. Sounds like they want marriage to be given a meaning it has never had [through judicial powers] by a biased judge. Whatever it is, it does not sound like civil rights [ex Greensboro]. IMO
Report Post »rienheart
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:36amThe Few Holds the Many Hostage to an unlawful Decree by an activist Judges Panel. Time for a House Cleaning.
Report Post »one years food ration like glenn says
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:43amSAN FRANCISCO <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< enough written..
Report Post »Stuck_in_CA
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:56amThe idea that the 10th Amendment should rule the day on this issue, has merit. If a state wants to be immoral, the people of that state will have to be held to account someday.
Report Post »But, after the people of this state TWICE rejected “gay marriage,” we feel we have no recourse. Who we gonna call?
ashestoashes
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:57amSame sex sex is an abomination to God. He hates it. Marriage is defined as a legal contract between a man and a woman and recognised by usually the legal system as well as the church. Any church recognizing this union is not of the church of Jesus/Yeshua the Messiah and His Father God. Read Revelations when Jesus is speaking to the Churches. You have to choose who you are going to serve. Do you serve Christ? Or do you serve Satan?
banjarmon
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:32amCalifornia is a SIN!
Report Post »dadsrootbeer
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:26amOnly in Cali where the people voted no on prop 8, a gay judge activist threw it out and now the most liberal state supreme court is going to hand down a decision. The same court which has been repeatedly warned by the supreme court for their lack lawful decisions. Once again, only in Cali.
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:24amAnd if the judge hadn’t been gay, they would have screamed he was biased because he was straight!
A judge is a judge. This judge has a strong record, and I think he was a Regan appointment, if I recall.
If he were such an actist, why didn’t he get married when it WAS legal in CA?
(Playing devil’s advocate. I’m a devout Christian, Constitutionalist, and strong believer in Jefferson’s quote, “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what business is it of mine?”
Report Post ».
.
.
biohazard23
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:22amOy vey….
Report Post »NEAF
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:14amMarriage is not a Right. They are looking for Tax break.
Report Post »Quagmir
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:23amI am sorry but how many times do the people of Cali have to say no before the courts override. Oh wait they dont even wait for them to say it once.
Report Post »jkendal
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:37amExactly! They’re trying to convince everyone that marriage is a civil right. It is nothing of the sort. In fact, there isn’t one right that homosexuals are being denied that the rest of us have. NOT ONE! If there were, we wouldn’t hear the end of it.
No, what they want is special recognition and protection for what is nothing more than sexual preference. And make no mistake – once they have it their goal is to go after ANY Christian church that refuses to marry them. In fact, it’s already happening in states that allow it.
Talk about turning “Equal Protection Under the Law” on it’s head!
Report Post »TomFerrari
Posted on September 7, 2011 at 11:05amIf marriage is a religious construct, which most believe it IS,
then, Congress has NO authority to abridge the free exercise of religion.
As a religious construct, it IS A RIGHT.
If your religion prohibits gays from marrying, then you should not marry them.
However, if someone else’s religion DOES permit it, then, we have no business interfering with that religion.
The problem is, that government is involved.
Report Post »NEAF
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:11amHold on. I thought the people of Californication already voted NO to Prop 8. Democracy? Only when Liberals can benefit.
Report Post »RIGHTHOOK
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 8:42amIt was voted on and they lost. Plain and simple correct? No! The democratic method they asked for backfired and since “they” had a bad outcome they want to get the CA liberal Supreme Court to fix it for them……at taxpayer expense of course. Had they won initially you would have never heard another word about it and they would surely flaunt that victory had it happened. If those that opposed it had been on the losing side of the equation and attempted to challenge it……..well you can imagine how they would react.
Report Post »Another pathetic statement about the condition of the country…the world for that matter.
TomFerrari
Posted on September 6, 2011 at 9:28amCalifornia allows the voters to place “initiatives” on the ballot, regardless of the state’s senate.
Such initiatives can become law (Prop 8), and are then challenged through the court system.
This is why it is called, “PROP 8”, because it was a “proposition” on the ballot. If it had been passed by the state’s legislature, it would have been called something like, “Senate Bill 8” (“SB 8”) or something like that.
I used to live in California, before returning to TX ! (much, much happier in Texas!)
Report Post »