Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

California Supreme Court will rule on Prop 8 this morning...

A post on another message board (on which I can read, but not post)...

This morning as I readied myself for work I awoke my husband, we have been together for almost 15 years (not bad for someone who is 35) and we were married on Oct 16, 2008.

I sat on the bed putting my shoes on, reached over and stroked my cat "Ginger". I got up, bent over and gently kissed by sleeping husband on the forehead. In a half awake, half asleep voice he said, "I love you"...

When I see him again tonight he may no longer be my husband. He and I, and our love will once again make him my "friend" or "partner" or "roommate", all terms we have had used for us...

I ask for those that do not care one way or the other, to think about this... to think about the fact that right now, at this very moment, MY LIFE IS OUT OF MY HANDS. I am a nameless faceless person who waits for a court to tell me if I am married...

I am freaked out... sad, and hurt.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x5721703

Fucking bastards upheld it.

They all need to be recalled and disbarred.


Prepare for riots.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1


Upheld the ban, but all marriages performed before Prop 8 are valid and are not being voided.

fuck them

I am so fucking pissed right now.


California Supreme Court can go fuck themselves - ruling that rights can be voted on.



They disregarded their own constitution.

Fucking cowards.

dbackjon wrote:I am so fucking pissed right now.


California Supreme Court can go fuck themselves - ruling that rights can be voted on.



They disregarded their own constitution.

Fucking cowards.

any idea what the slit was? 4-3, 5-2, 6-1 or unanimous?

6-1

Dane -- how on earth can they uphold previous marriages, and yet acknowledge it as Constitutional to ban others??? this would seem an equal protection case destined for SCOTUS....

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Dane -- how on earth can they uphold previous marriages, and yet acknowledge it as Constitutional to ban others??? this would seem an equal protection case destined for SCOTUS....

Exactly.

And how can they affirm that Sexual Orientation is in the highest protected class, along with race and gender, but allow a simple proposition to restrict rights to it.


They are in effect saying a simple majority of Californians could vote to make blacks second-class citizens, etc.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Dane -- how on earth can they uphold previous marriages, and yet acknowledge it as Constitutional to ban others??? this would seem an equal protection case destined for SCOTUS....

Not sure yet not having read the decisions, but I'm guessing they relied on their previous ruling and created a two separate CA Consitutions (Pre-Prop 8 and Post-Prop 8).

So for example - under the Pre-Prop 8 CA Consitution - same-sex marriage was legal. Once Prop 8 was passed, the CA Constitutional was changed on a going-forward basis and not retroactively, so anything that occured prior to Prop 8 under the old consitution is valid.

Remember - Prop 8 was a change in the CA Constiution. It was not a vote to interpret the Constitution. Only a Court can interpret the Constitution.

dbackjon wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Dane -- how on earth can they uphold previous marriages, and yet acknowledge it as Constitutional to ban others??? this would seem an equal protection case destined for SCOTUS....

Exactly.

And how can they affirm that Sexual Orientation is in the highest protected class, along with race and gender, but allow a simple proposition to restrict rights to it.


They are in effect saying a simple majority of Californians could vote to make blacks second-class citizens, etc.

Once again, without having read the case that is what it sounds like. Remember though, a State Constiution cannot infringe upon the rights granted in the Federal Consitution. So, perhaps the next case will be a Federal one arguing that the new CA Consitution (with Prop 8 language) infringes upon the rights granted in the Federal Constitution. Should be interesting to actually read the case.

danefan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Exactly.

And how can they affirm that Sexual Orientation is in the highest protected class, along with race and gender, but allow a simple proposition to restrict rights to it.


They are in effect saying a simple majority of Californians could vote to make blacks second-class citizens, etc.

Once again, without having read the case that is what it sounds like. Remember though, a State Constiution cannot infringe upon the rights granted in the Federal Consitution. So, perhaps the next case will be a Federal one arguing that the new CA Consitution (with Prop 8 language) infringes upon the rights granted in the Federal Constitution. Should be interesting to actually read the case.

I want to as well...

dbackjon wrote:

danefan wrote:
Once again, without having read the case that is what it sounds like. Remember though, a State Constiution cannot infringe upon the rights granted in the Federal Consitution. So, perhaps the next case will be a Federal one arguing that the new CA Consitution (with Prop 8 language) infringes upon the rights granted in the Federal Constitution. Should be interesting to actually read the case.

I want to as well...

that's why my take on this would be that at this point it seems to be a tailor-made two hopper to SCOTUS for a 14th amendment overturn.

Some more detail:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 7891.story

6-1 on validity of Prop 8.
7-0 on validity of Pre-Prop 8 marriages.

dbackjon wrote:Fucking bastards upheld it.

They all need to be recalled and disbarred.


Prepare for riots.

Oh, who are you kidding. Gays don't riot.

Glad this got upheld. The PEOPLE of California spoke, not the politicians. In the largest state in the union, where Obama won by 24% of the vote, this could not even be passed.

African Americans, who voted 95-5% for Obama, voted 70-30% in favor of Prop 8.

Bitch and moan all you want, but the people of California have the same opinion of our President, our Secretary of State, and of many past President's as well.

guinzone wrote:Glad this got upheld. The PEOPLE of California spoke, not the politicians. In the largest state in the union, where Obama won by 24% of the vote, this could not even be passed.

African Americans, who voted 95-5% for Obama, voted 70-30% in favor of Prop 8.

Bitch and moan all you want, but the people of California have the same opinion of our President, our Secretary of State, and of many past President's as well.

99% of the people in the country could have a certain opinion on something. But that doesn't necessarily make it the correct and just opinion.

I'm not yet saying that holds true in this case, but what I'm saying is that I'm not really on-board with the legal precedent that Consitutional amendments can be made by a slim majority vote. Thats just bad policy IMO.

There are just too many uneducated and flippant voters out there.

guinzone wrote:Glad this got upheld. The PEOPLE of California spoke, not the politicians. In the largest state in the union, where Obama won by 24% of the vote, this could not even be passed.

African Americans, who voted 95-5% for Obama, voted 70-30% in favor of Prop 8.

Bitch and moan all you want, but the people of California have the same opinion of our President, our Secretary of State, and of many past President's as well.

'swhat I keep saying.

This is about the rule of law.

The "Same-Sex Marriage" proposals in California should be more aptly titled the "Settle The Score By Getting Revenge" proposal as they all entail legal mechanisms allowing the GLBT community to litiguously target businesses and churches who have not supported "gay rights" not only in the present, but in the past also.
Quite frankly, most Californians don't give a rat's ass who anyone else marries, but the anti-hetero/ant-religion hatred that the GLBT activists have been spewing for the past decade is as nauseating as listening to a Klan rally.

Until the "quiet" members of the GLBT community begin slapping down the "mouths" and lawyers who are trying to use the battle over their rights as a means of financial and vengeful enrichment, this issue will never be resolved.

danefan wrote:

guinzone wrote:Glad this got upheld. The PEOPLE of California spoke, not the politicians. In the largest state in the union, where Obama won by 24% of the vote, this could not even be passed.

African Americans, who voted 95-5% for Obama, voted 70-30% in favor of Prop 8.

Bitch and moan all you want, but the people of California have the same opinion of our President, our Secretary of State, and of many past President's as well.

99% of the people in the country could have a certain opinion on something. But that doesn't necessarily make it the correct and just opinion.

I'm not necessarily saying that holds true in this case, but what I'm saying is that I'm not necessarily on-board with the legal precedent that Consitutional amendments can be made by a slim majority vote. Thats just bad policy IMO.

There are just too many uneducated and flippant voters out there.

Aren't we still a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people? Since when doesn't majority rule?

AZGrizFan wrote: Aren't we still a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people? Since when doesn't majority rule?

Best post on the board!

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
99% of the people in the country could have a certain opinion on something. But that doesn't necessarily make it the correct and just opinion.

I'm not necessarily saying that holds true in this case, but what I'm saying is that I'm not necessarily on-board with the legal precedent that Consitutional amendments can be made by a slim majority vote. Thats just bad policy IMO.

There are just too many uneducated and flippant voters out there.

Aren't we still a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people? Since when doesn't majority rule?

The majority rarely rules in major decisions. The majority doesn't even elect our President. The branches of our government are set up that way to protect us against ourselves. Its part of the genious of the US government, which is not a definitional democracy.

Certain decisions are better left to specific branches of Government. This, IMO should have been something that the Legislative branch dealt with. People who have the resources and ability to sit down, analyze the issues and decide. Don't like the decisions, vote out your representative.

I honestly think Prop 8 was a gross manipulation of the CA State Constitution.

AZGrizFan wrote:

danefan wrote:
99% of the people in the country could have a certain opinion on something. But that doesn't necessarily make it the correct and just opinion.

I'm not necessarily saying that holds true in this case, but what I'm saying is that I'm not necessarily on-board with the legal precedent that Consitutional amendments can be made by a slim majority vote. Thats just bad policy IMO.

There are just too many uneducated and flippant voters out there.

Aren't we still a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people? Since when doesn't majority rule?

not when 52% vote to deny rights to others... that's not majority rule, that's majority oppression.

our Constitution, and our ENTIRE BASIS OF GOVERNMENT is based on majority rule with guaranteed equality for all... thus preventing 51% from enslaving 49% -

Fact is, California, and their STUPID ASS referendums have run that state in to the ground... mandated funding, no revenue increases... legislating by bumper sticker... and it's been their road to ruin... it continues to be so. Fact is, voters ought to be electing people to be better informed on more issues than they are, and empowering them to make hard choices.

when they don't... they end up budgeting themselves right in to the red... mostly because in a gigantic group setting there is no accounting for people making horseshit decisions (like they did last week in the special election)

this country has a referendum process... they are called elections, direct democracy we are not and that's a very good thing.

danefan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Aren't we still a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people? Since when doesn't majority rule?

The majority rarely rules in major decisions. The majority doesn't even elect our President. The branches of our government are set up that way to protect us against ourselves. Its part of the genious of the US government, which is not a definitional democracy.

Certain decisions are better left to specific branches of Government. This, IMO should have been something that the Legislative branch dealt with. People who have the resources and ability to sit down, analyze the issues and decide. Don't like the decisions, vote out your representative.

I honestly think Prop 8 was a gross manipulation of the CA State Constitution.

Nope. The California Constitution itself is gross by design. Prop 8 is typical.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:not when 52% vote to deny rights to others... that's not majority rule, that's majority oppression.

our Constitution, and our ENTIRE BASIS OF GOVERNMENT is based on majority rule with guaranteed equality for all... thus preventing 51% from enslaving 49% -

2008 Presidential Winner - Barack Obama 52.9%