The court will take up the case of whether the ban was constitutional and will also take up the question of the legality of the 18,000 same sex marriages already performed but they refused to suspend the ban:
Responding to pleas for legal clarity from those on both sides of the issue, the California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would take up the case of whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions was constitutional.Given the actions of the gay protesters recently, I would hate to be these judges if they ruled in favor of the measure.The court, however, stopped short of suspending the ban, which California voters passed as Proposition 8 two weeks ago after an expensive and hard-fought campaign.
The proposition, which overturned a May decision of the California Supreme Court that legalized same-sex marriage, has been challenged by a number of cities and civil rights groups, which say it is a substantial revision of the state's Constitution, and therefore requires legislative approval.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I don't think any judge his going to let the possibility of protestors jeering or cheering sway his or her opinion, and I think any judge knows it comes with the territory. (Votes, for judges who are elected, is entirely another issue.) Besides, they have some tools for managing their lives that the rest of us don't.
Yes, funny how people get all exercised over a little thing like being treated as less than equal. Imagine that.
I have yet to understand why some people think that their religious beliefs should some how trump the Constitutional rights of others.
We supposedly send our armed forces over to the Middle East to stop the terrorists and those wanting to force others into a theocracy but at the same time, seek to pretty much to do the same thing here. Where's a mirror when it's needed. The Constitution was never meant to be used as a club, State or Federal but that's what it was used for.
I'm glad to see the California Supreme Court doing their job. What I’ll find amusing is that certain religious groups will begin to whine about activist judges, when in fact, the majority of the California Supreme Court are Republicans. I guess it shows that the judges understand what the constitution better than many of the rr. Granted, the judges may not like or even approve of gay marriage but they also understand what tyranny is and this was a wonderful example of religious tyranny!
sorry for the triple post. every time i would submit, this debate would time out. it finally went throught and voila, 3 posts.
who ever reviews this article, please delete two of the posts.
Sorry it was done in error.
Thanks!
I never understood why Prop 8 was even allowed on the ballot. It mirrored a similar voter-passed initiative that was rightly struck down as UN-Constitutional because it denied an identifiable segment of the population equal treatment before the law. The same will happen to Prop 8 eventually, because it's equally UN-Constitutional, as was the process - changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote in the Legislature, not a mere majority of votes cast in an unjust ballot measure.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.