Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Prop 8 upheld 6 to 1 - 18,000 marriages still valid

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:05 PM
Original message
Prop 8 upheld 6 to 1 - 18,000 marriages still valid
Source: Pam's House Blend

no surprise really

No link yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. 6 to 1?
That's even worse than I hoped. Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Damn. Only one non-bigot on the bench?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. That's what I was thinking.
How truly sad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidhilton1 Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
70. damn...
and i thought i lived in a progressive state...guess not...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #70
88. It was the one Democrat.
The other 6 judges are repukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
104. Only one Democrat on that bench, I believe. I hope to God the Democrat was the holdout.
Edited on Tue May-26-09 06:10 PM by No Elephants
On edit. Yes, Moreno, a Davis appointee, was the one dissent. If the one Democrat on the Court had voted against gay marriage, I would spit nails. Then again, I am spitting nails anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Given the facts at hand, it's hard to see how they could have ruled otherwise.
Bigotry probably has very little to do with it.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GodlessBiker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. I disagree. The facts at hand compelled a different decision. It's bigotry...
or at least a presumption that our cause is not on par with the causes of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
79. If not, could they have used the equal protection clause to outlaw hetero marriage too today?...

Saying that in order for them to comply with this new state ammendment and have it apply equally, they'd have to not allow heterosexual marriages after today either. THAT would generate a firestorm!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #79
102. That's an interesting idea, but it probably wasn't presented by any of the parties...
...as one of the proposed remedies.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
93. Oh no - equal protection was the only fact that mattered
So some Californians have less of a right to determine who their family is and what they can do with their property than others based on whether they are married or not.

Thus, if you died and left property to your unmarried significant other, your cousin whom you have never in your life met has a greater right to your estate than your significant other, even with a will in place.

Your significant other can fully benefit from a life insurance policy, but has no inheritance exemption. Furthermore if your blood kin believes that you were manipulated into assigning a non-blood non-marriage beneficiary, they can hold up your annuity indefinitely with court challenges.

It's truly sick. If you are not married, your blood kin and the state has a greater say in what happens to your property than you do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #93
103. Yes. That's exactly what the voters of California decided to enshrine in their constitution.
And it's that constitution that is binding upon the Court.

So now get out there and re-change the California Constitution!

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #93
106. I think you are incorrect about leaving your property in your will. There is a difference
between dying with a valid will and dying without a valid will. In the first instance, you can benefit or disinherit anyone you please. In the latter instance, your SO is screwn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #106
122. nope - if they're not legally recognized as family / next of kin
then they can inherit but have to pay income/inheritance taxes without any exemption. That's the nuance -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #122
123. That is different from what you said in Reply #93. Paying a tax that family
would not have to pay is different from not being able to inherit the property at all.

However, this is a law that the legislature can readily change. Maybe that is worth pursuing while the big issue is fought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #123
126. It depends on the state
Edited on Wed May-27-09 09:17 AM by sui generis
technically, intestate or not if I will money to my partner my nephews can challenge that portion of my estate as next of kin. Certainly if I will real property to my partner, my next of kin can readily challenge that; in fact my partner can be evicted (read: locked out, including his possessions) from the property while the will is in probate.

It's ugly no matter which paint brush you use. Marriage allows us to define our "next of kin", since next of kin appear to have more rights in cases of inheritance, intestate or otherwise.

That's the central idea here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
105. They could have ruled that a majority cannot restrict the civil rights of a minority. They could
have ruled that so doing goes against about 150 years of equal protection decisions by the SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #105
118. Unfortunately, that's not the law in California.
According to the CA state constitution, a simple majority actually *CAN*
restrict the rights of a minority. It may be completely fucked up, but it
*IS* the law so the court was simply ruling in a way that upholds the law.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #118
124. Read Moreno's dissenting opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #124
127. Remind me again: what force of law does a dissenting opinion carry? (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. As someone said earlier - the CA Supremes were for equal marriage
in their earlier, split decision. This question was mostly about the Constitutional process. So they've affirmed the right of the slim majority to strip the rights of the minority. Hopefully someone is filing today to strip Mormons and Catholics of their right to marry.

Congrats to the 18,000 first class gay and lesbian couple who remain validly recognized by the State - and I'm terribly sorry to the rest of my brothers and sisters who still have to fight for their basic rights to be recognized in their state. I'm still amazed that here in NC we've managed to keep this issue off of the ballot, or we'd certainly have an amended Constitution here by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DKRC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Not just marriage
strip the churches of their tax exempt status as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpookyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #25
81. Ab-so-lutely!
You wanna play politics? Pay your damn taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. Sounds like a candidate for another "majority" prop to change the constitution...
Perhaps if we go after them with these props, eventually they'll understand that war has its costs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
96. That is actually a Proposition that should be put forth to a simple majority vote n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
condoleeza Donating Member (464 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
117. Tax exempting churches has made many a millionaire. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demo dutch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
95. Yeah Virginia Foxx would spearheading that one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
82. This might be a GOOD thing in disguise. Might mean if a ballot question GRANTS Marriage Equality...
Edited on Tue May-26-09 01:17 PM by Ian David
.. then the courts and the government must uphold it.

Same goes if they ban the Mormon Magic Underpants.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Miserable bunch of fucking bigots.
Fuck every single hateful shithead that voted for it in the first place. Fuck the 6 judges that upheld it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. How the fuck
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:10 PM by Terran
do the explain the continuing validity of those marriages then?

This is so fucked.

Oh BTW--US Supreme Court, here comes Prop 8. We could be seeing same sex marriage resolved at the federal level--finally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Exactly
Legislative twilight zone. Fuck
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Those marriages occurred when gay marriage was actually legal in CA.
Between the court ruling making them legal and the passage of Prop 8. I thought this was obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Perfectly obvious, thanks; however, it creates
an intolerable legal ambiguity which, IMO, can now only be resolved by the US Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. So, will the state recognize "legal" same-sex marriages from other states?
This is a real problem for them. If they're arguing that the state will recognize marriages that were legal at the time they were entered into, why can't CA citizens go to MA and get married. Those marriages would be legal. According to this ruling, the state would have to recognize them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
61. You can't import to CA an AR-15 rifle in standard configuration that was legal in another state
So I believe the answer will be "No".

The situation is quite parallel. I own three such rifles that I acquired and/or built in California when it was legal to do so. But a person who desires to own one now cannot legally do so. I get to keep mine because of when I acquired them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Same-sex marriage was legal for a while before it became illegal
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:13 PM by slackmaster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. It is totally phucked...how can you say just because you were quick to get married
it's valid, but now it isn't...too much political posturing went into this decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Certainly. But it is what it is. I find this preferably to a ruling that makes
those existing marriages invalid - that would be a true crime.

On to the ballot box - again, and again, and again. As long as it takes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
101. Yes,a nd that's what makes it a political decision...a compromise...
...granted, by doing this I think this makes this decision by them (banning gay marriage) pretty weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ManiacJoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
121. Actually the timeline is quite easy to follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nyy1998 Donating Member (984 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Original message
Oh God I hope not
This will probably be upheld in the Supreme Court and become the left's Roe v. Wade
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
66. The SCOTUS has already upheld
equal treatment under the law for 'homosexuals' in Lawrence v. Texas (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html), aka the Texas Sodomy Law case.

Basically, if this issue never gets to the Supreme Court, all these state same-sex marriage laws are useless because they can't grant any of the numerous federal financial benefits available to married people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #66
109. I am sad and sorry to say that the Supremes could easily distinguish that case
from this case, if they so choose. I hope they choose to follow it, but nothing in Lawrence requires them to. And Lawrence was decided before Roberts and Alito were appointed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
108. Pray that Scalia, Roberts and Thomas are in a coma when the case hits the Supremes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. "gay marriage is still ILLEGAL in California"
Heard that on both Fox News and MSNBC

:puke:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
15. Damn
:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
16. sad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pink-o Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
18. Idiots trying to hedge their bets. this is worse than Don't ask Don't Tell!!
How is it possible that some gay couples can be legally married and others can't? If it's a "moral" issue, then isn't it all or nothing? No marriages unless it's between a man and woman?

But it's not a "Moral" issue. It's a civil rights issue. And how can some same-sex couples have that right when others don't????

I'm so pissed, I'm spitting nails!!! I've never seen any ruling as stupid as this!!! It's gonna cause a world of hurt to a lot of my friends WHO JUST WANT THE RIGHT TO LOVE SOMEONE!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
20. Supreme Court (CA) upholds Prop 8
Source: KGO San Francisco

The California Supreme Court upheld proposition 8 by a 6-1 vote today.
Existing "Summer" marriages are recognized.

No link yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Plessy v Ferguson: the California version.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Exactly. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handmade34 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. outrageous!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Isn't this a dupe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FVZA_Colonel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
26. ABC News: California Supreme Court Upholding Proposition 8
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:12 PM by FVZA_Colonel
Source: ABC

California Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 -- the controversial ballot question that banned same-sex marriage.

At the same time, the ruling has allowed about 18,000 same-sex couples already married, to retain the rights they attained during the brief six-month period that gay marriage was legal in the state.

Christian groups that applauded retention of the ban say that the ruling on those same-sex marriages could create a conflict -- not only in the marital rights of Californians, but in adoption and income tax laws.

"It's disappointing that the court will continue to uphold the legality of those who married during May to November of last year," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family in Action. "We don't know what the situation will be like, but it's likely to cause havoc in the courts as they try to deal with a class of individuals that look totally different."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7677819&page=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cecilfirefox Donating Member (404 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. I want to read the dissents. And see who dissented!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #27
110. 6-1 means only one dissent. Carlos Moreno, the only one of the California Supremes who was
Edited on Tue May-26-09 06:14 PM by No Elephants
appointed by a Democrat dissented. If you want to read the dissent, you probably can find it if you google.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Then, NOBODY should be married!
:nuke: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
29. California Supreme Court upholds Prop. 8; gay marriage remains banned in state
Source: LA Times

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists said they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.

By a 52-48 margin, voters approved the measure reinstating a ban on same-sex marriage after the state Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling last May, approved such marriages. Left in limbo were about 18,000 couples who got married in California between May and November of last year.

The seven justices could uphold Proposition 8 and also allow the 18,000 marriages to remain valid; they could uphold the same-sex marriage ban and void the marriages; or they could throw out the measure and legalize gay marriage.

...


Read more: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/california-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8-gay-marriage-remains-banned-in-state.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. This is a political decision, not one based on law...
...how can some have the right because they were quick, while now others can't...totally phucked up, totall expected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. wtf?
this is nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. Does it say whether they still respect marriages in another state? Maybe a trip to Iowa?
And come back later? Or will they take the same weird standpoint that they would respect marriages before today in other states but not afterward? Or not respect them at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicalboi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. That's a good question
I just can't believe in the 21st century we are still fighting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #43
115. No, it says nothing about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #30
60. before people start deriding the ANALYSIS
it might behoove people to READ the decision.

i strongly disagree with the RESULT.

personally, i'm not going to disagree with the logic/law until i read the decision.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Fuck! Time to go out and protest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TommyO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. BASTARDS! No civil right should every be up for a popular vote
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1776Forever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #32
53. I agree 100% - It is like rolling back ALL civil rights! This was wrong starting at "go"!
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:34 PM by 1776Forever
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
62. EXACTLY.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #32
112. the religious right is called fascist for a good reason
biggest suckers for the wealthy ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
116. Exactly - what would have happened if the people of Alabama, Arkansas, MS, etc had been allowed to
vote on desegregation in the '50s and 60s?!?!

The majority is not supposed to be allowed to discriminate against minorities -- that is the entire point behind the Bill of Rights.

Jeebus H. Christ on a trailer hitch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. San Diego Union Tribune story link up now...
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:17 PM by cascadiance
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/may/26/california-courts-gay-marriage-decision/?california&zIndex=105646


California court upholds gay marriage ban
Existing same-sex marriages to stand
UNION-TRIBUNE

10:00 a.m. May 26, 2009



FILE - In this March 5, 2009 file photo, from left to right, California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard, Chief Justice Ronald George, Justice Marvin Baxter, and Justice Ming Chin, walk into a courtroom in San Francisco before listening to arguments on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will rule Tuesday, May 26, 2009, on the validity of a voter approved ban on same-sex marriage, a decision that will end months of speculation over whether gay couples can resume marrying in the state. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, file) - AP

The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 Tuesday morning, which means the state's ban on same-sex marriage will remain in place.

The court also declined to invalidate about 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred during a five-month period last year when the marriages were legal.

The justices ruled in a lawsuit that Proposition 8 opponents filed. The opponents had argued that the proposition, which passed with 52 percent of the vote in November, was an improper revision of the state constitution that would have had to be approved by the Legislature before it went to a statewide vote.

Proposition backers said the initiative was an amendment to the state constitution and legislative action was not required.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #33
111. So that's what unprincipled cowards look like.
Edited on Tue May-26-09 06:05 PM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullimiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. what a pile of bs. some gay people can be married but more cannot?
capricious and arbitrary. just what a court decision should not be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
36. Unconscionable. I would say I'm sorry to the GLBT community but that would be insufficient
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:19 PM by shadowknows69
I'm sorry instead for the whole human race that this can still go on in the 21st or any century. How can you ban love and expect yourself to be called a civilized being?

:cry: :cry: :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
handmade34 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. well said
so much for being 'civil'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. San Jose Mercury News story link...
Edited on Tue May-26-09 12:22 PM by cascadiance
http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12451435?nclick_check=1

California Supreme Court upholds same-sex marriage ban; lets stand existing gay unions

By Howard Mintz

Mercury News
Posted: 05/26/2009 10:06:30 AM PDT
Updated: 05/26/2009 10:12:27 AM PDT


People wait in line for a decision from the California State Supreme Court on the legality of a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions, Tuesday, May 26, 2009, in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma) ( Paul Sakuma )

The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8, the voter-approved law restoring a ban on same-sex marriages in the state, but at the same time left intact the more than 18,000 marriages for gay and lesbian couples who wed last year before the ballot measure went into effect.

The Supreme Court's decision puts California in unusual territory for the time being, establishing a two-tiered system of marriage across the state for same-sex couples. Under the ruling, Proposition 8 will continue to outlaw same-sex marriage in the future, but those gay and lesbian couples who got their marriage licenses before last November's election will remain on equal legal footing with heterosexual couples.

The decision to uphold Prop 8 was widely expected by legal experts, as it was considered unlikely the justices would have the legal authority to overturn a voter-approved amendment to the California constitution.

The ruling is likely to shift the battleground over gay marriage back to the political arena, as gay rights advocates already are mobilizing to push another ballot measure to erase Prop 8, approved by voters by a 52 to 48 percent margin.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bunny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
38. Oh no. This is awful.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lies and propaganda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
40. Motherfuckers
In the most free thinking state in our union, we were submarined by fucking cultist Mormons from another fucking state.

Im so fucking disgusted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
78. In the most free thinking state in our union,
Edited on Tue May-26-09 01:07 PM by AlbertCat
HAHAHAHAHAHA! What a laugh. Free-thinking only in pockets like LA and SF. Go out in the boonies and there are as many red necks as NC! Even in the cities, people are more concerned with what car they're driving or what music they listen to than anything else. Free-thinking my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #40
107. Not true, it was the voters of California that approved prop 8
not the voers in Utah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. This raises an interesting legal question
I haven't read the ruling -- still too angry to do it.

However, if the court will recognize marriages that exist because they were legal at the time they were entered into, will the state also recognize same-sex marriages from other states -- because those too were legal at the time they were entered into.

I would love to see a case on this come up. It's a natural consequence of this idiotic ruling.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Beat me to it... Maybe it means only support out of state marriages if they were before today?
I guess that would prevent people from moving the newer gay marriage business out of California to other states and shrinking the tax revenue for the very needy state of California...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #41
67. Ex post facto and full faith and credit clauses.
California can't retroactively annul the 18,000 previously contracted gay marriages.
That's the ex post facto clause.

Also, if someone gets married in MA and moves to CA or any other state, that state must recognize the marriage contracted in another state as valid -- that's the full faith and credit clause.

I wonder when a gay married couple will move from a state where it's valid to a state that does not recognize gay marriage, and sue the state for recognition if they are discriminated against.

Then there's the due process clause and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. Or -- and what would be easier
Is for a CA couple to travel to MA or somewhere to be married, where it's legal, and then come home to CA and demand to have the marriage recognized.

The court seems to indicate that the state will recognize same-sex marriages that were legal at the time they were contracted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. However, will they use the same rationale not to recognize out of state marriages after today?
Edited on Tue May-26-09 01:04 PM by cascadiance
That would be the fundamental question California GLBT folk should be asking. If no, then there really might be some violence that breaks out over this. If yes, then California's throwing away a potential huge industry that might have helped the state get some badly needed revenue, as many will be having their marriages out of state instead of here, giving other states that business instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #67
113. A gay couple married in Massachusetts who is asking Texas for a divorce. So far, Texas says
no. In order to avoid recognizing the marriage, even for the purpose of granting a divorce, Texas is forcing a gay couple to stay married. Ironic, wot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
42. Back to work. Put it to the voters a million times if need be. It will happen. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. First pass a prop to overturn prop 8! THEN pass a prop to reform ammendment props...
... to require a 2/3rds votes instead of a majority vote to pass an ammendment to the state constitution...

California's f'd up with that low a threshold...

Then again, California needs to make sure to get the bad state props already passed overturned before one changes the proposition process to require a 2/3rds vote.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #49
58. And yet a 2/3 vote in the legislature is required for a budget
in effect giving the repukes veto power over any (gasp!) tax increase.

The result: The place that really was "the Golden State" in my youth is headed toward the poorhouse.

This cannot be good for other Western states (like Hawai'i), where even a small outmigration of fed-up Californians translates into a huge influx of "Californicating" newcomers.

Then again, to get back on topic, we're hardly ones to talk about equality; we blew our chance to be natioanl leaders over a decade ago, thanks largely to the same two large churches that funded Prop H8. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #58
65. I just moved to Oregon, and California will be paying for my unemployment...
... and I'm guessing in this economy, there are a lot more like me than they'd care to admit. To qualify for receiving unemployment in many states, I think you have to be there something like a year before you moved there for that state to have to pay your claims. This could be a big sap on the state's budget.

Even though I'm not looking for a job in California. They will pay the price if I can't find one here in Oregon. And I'm guessing the more people leave now, will make this problem bigger for other people that get affected the same way after moving away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #49
90. I think it needs to go further
civil rights ought never (whether 2/3, 3/4 or 7/8) be up for a vote. The majority should never be allowed to strip a minority of civil rights.

And didn't the USSC rule that marriage is a civil right in Loving?

The screwy proposition process in CA needs to be strongly amended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KTinaY2008 Donating Member (28 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #42
52. This is very simple to me and I am not a very smart person...
It is very simple: should the majority decide civil rights for the minority? NO. Even if you are against gay marriage you should still be against Prop 8 for this reason in and of itself. I don't understand this decision at all. If someone like me gets this I don't understand why the judges don't get it. It makes me sick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
45. I will not apologize for anything that the Californians do today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #29
46. This is so wrong, just sooooo wrong.
How can they reverse their own decision a year later. It is insane.

Hey, Jerry Brown, thanks for sending that bumbling idiot, last March, to argue before the court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #46
69. You are so right
That guy Brown sent up to argue was just about the worst lawyer I've ever seen appear in court -- and I've seen a lot of court cases. I was absolutely appalled at how inarticulate and unprepared he was. What a maroon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
closeupready Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #46
92. How can they reverse their own decision a year later? Cowardice.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #92
114. Technically, that is not what happened. Their first decision interpreted the California
Constitution as it read at that time. Since then, Californians amended the Constitution. This decision says the amendment is vaild.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livefreest Donating Member (378 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
48. here' s to hopping for
light in a time of darkness love in a time of hate and fear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pup_ajax Donating Member (39 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
50. Let's put "outlawing religion" on the CA ballot
Time to vote to outlaw religion ...

I'm still married today, but my fellow LGBT citizens aren't allowed.
Welcome to the new "Seperate-But-Equal" clusterf**k created by religious bigots and the California State Supreme Court.

We are sad, disappointed, not really surprised, and so sick of this sh*t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24601 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #50
119. As long as you oppose the 1st amendment, go ahead and
oppose freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly. You'll get just as far.

The difference is that the US Constitution says nothing about same sex marriage and no credible attorney one will argue that it ever was intended to. The path to change is a constitutional amendment and that starts at the ballot box, not the courts. What this country needs every 240 years is a Constitutional Convention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AngryAmish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
51. I, for one around here, think this is wrong
Equal porotection means anyone should marry who they want to, regardless of gender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpookyCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
54. Fuck.
Sorry CA LGBT.

I'm ashamed and disgusted with my state today. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
55. I guess now all the fires and earthquakes and stuff will stop
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #55
84. Or...California is about to get The Big One.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
supernova Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
56. Truly sorry to see this
Was hoping for the opposite ruling.

:-(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
57. How many years?
How many years will it take before all the religious bigots are dead and this issue can go away?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amb123 Donating Member (764 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #29
64. Time to Burn your Marriage Certificates in Protest.
To those gay/lesbian couples whose marriages are still legal in CA should, in protest of the Supreme Courts Decision, either return their certificates to the agencies that issued them or burn them in public to show solidarity with gay/lesbian couples who now cannot get married.

:mad: :nuke: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #64
74. How about
straight people burn their marriage certificates to show solidarity with us? That would be much more effective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #64
77. Why limit it to LGBT? How about EVERYBODY burn their marriage certificates in solidarity? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #64
91. Why yes, concede defeat....
Why don't you post again after you have calmed down? Having 18,000 legally wed gay couples in the state, plus legally wed couples from other states who move in is a giant foot in the door. The Prop 8 forces may think they have slammed the door, however, it will bounce off of the steel-toed boot of reason. This is a minor setback at worst, creating a separate-but-equal category that will be a legal embarrassment until it can be adjudicated properly in some other case. Supreme Courts are known for handing down a few dizzy decisions :silly: :silly: every so often, it keeps them in business as more cases are brought to overturn them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vehl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
59. Sad Sad day for california and the nation as a whole :(
Today is a day when the majority trampled yet again on the rights of the minority.

this is really saddening
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kickin_Donkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
63. Gutless decision ...
gutless "justices"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Kerry VonErich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
68. I just hope there won't be another "White Night Riot"
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Strathos Donating Member (713 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
71. California gays should leave NOW and not spend another cent in that state
The only thing those people listen to is the almighty dollar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. Not everyone can just pack up and go
Not with the housing and job market the way it is. And, there are other ways to fight back.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bullwinkle428 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
75. EXCLUSIVE : Next week, California to declare GLBTers as 3/5 of a person!
:mad: :mad: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #75
86. And no more of them may be imported into the state after 1808
:banghead: :argh: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
80. Obviously, they feared homosexual reaction and growing power . . .GOOD!!!
BAD!!! on letting the Prop itself stand . . .

What of the interference of religion in this proposition -- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$?????

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
85. State Senator Mark Leno.
who wrote the two gay marriage bills passed by the legislature and vetoed by Arnold Schwarzenegger, has released a statement. (my emphasis)

"Today's decision is extremely disappointing for California and hurts thousands of caring couples who wish to make lifelong commitments to one another through marriage. Let today's decision be a rallying cry for all Californians who believe in equality and fairness, and encourage thousands more to stand up and fight the pervasive injustices LGBT people face in our community and our nation."

"The issue before this court was much greater than marriage equality. The question asked of our justices goes to the core of our society. Can a majority vote undermine a foundation stone of our constitutional democracy, equal protection under the law? Today our highest court ruled that minorities do not matter."

"Through our disappointment, we will still find hope and encouragement, including the 18,000 couples whose marriages in California remain secure and protected today. Through our sadness, our resolve to fight for justice and equality only grows stronger. Love is an unstoppable force, and equality is right around the corner."

http://www.calitics.com/diary/8969/prop-8-decision-web-address

Pelosi & Garamendi statements also at link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demo dutch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #85
97. CA really need to amend their initiative process, it should not have been placed on the ballot
Edited on Tue May-26-09 03:50 PM by demo dutch
The decision should have stayed with the courts those who interpret the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libertas1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
87. Well...
its official, Iowa (at least their Supreme Court anyways) is now more progressive than California.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demo dutch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #87
98. It should never have gone on the ballot, had it stayed in the courts CA would have been ok, so
Edited on Tue May-26-09 03:55 PM by demo dutch
it's really time to change the initiative process in CA. It's only a matter of time before a case works it's way to the supreme court,and it will be interesting to see if they'll take it since marriage is within states rights or whether it will become a civil rights issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
89. I appologize to those that due not have full human civil rights
Our courts as well as our politicians are bought and are indifferent to individual lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xenotime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
94. So much for California being the progressive leaders.. Time to look elsewhere
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AsahinaKimi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
99. I can't stand to read the comments...
I can't stand to read the comments anymore at SFgate.com anymore. What has happened to our fair city? Once the bastion for liberal ideas... we have been infiltrated by right wingers, hell bent on turning all of California into their conservative paradise. Maybe its been slowly happening for a long time..*shakes head* I don't know, but I have been so saddened by this..ever since prop 8 passed. This is truly a sad, sad day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
time_has_come Donating Member (872 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
100. Some good news....
...the existing marriages are still valid.

And when you look at the demographics of the prop 8 vote - 60 per cent of seniors voted for it, 60 per cent under 30 voted against it - it's inevitable that the law will change in the near future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TaxCollector Donating Member (30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
120. The Only Way
To reverse this ruling, the constitution must be amended. Women were not allowed to vote until state and federal laws or constitutions were chanaged. They didn't get to vote because of a court decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #120
125. The real gutless parties here are the members of our state legislature
They won't go against the will of the majority of voters, as Congress did for the Suffrage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 16th 2024, 03:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC