Breaking: no full story at Fox or CNN just yet, but that'll change by mid afternoon. I'm pleasantly surprised it was such a lopsided decision.| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Proposition 8 upheld 6-1 by California Supreme Court |
| 2009-05-26 |
| Breaking: no full story at Fox or CNN just yet, but that'll change by mid afternoon. I'm pleasantly surprised it was such a lopsided decision. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #10 "Second they will appeal this to the USSC (best chance)." Not really, CS. Prop 8 arguments were all about the California constitution. It's unlikely the Supremes would grant cert. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-05-26 19:06 |
| #9 Those of the same gender who married prior to Prop 8 are still legal, because Prop 8 was not (and could not be) ex post facto. Yep, they just can't get divorced. :-) |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-05-26 18:51 |
| #8 Pleasant surprise. I thought for sure they would rule that denying gay marriage would be a violation of the equal protection clause. This will probably get elevated, though. Will be interesting to read the court's full decision. |
| Posted by: abu Chuck al Ameriki 2009-05-26 15:48 |
| #7 expect the protests to be Flaaaaming |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-05-26 15:36 |
| #6 Trust me this aint over. First off the Gay Rights groups are attempting to add a ballot measure to recind Prop 8 (slim chance). Second they will appeal this to the USSC (best chance). Third, many are calling for a state constitutional convention to rewrite all the parts that the left doesn't like (marginal chance). Last, they might get enough politicians to override prop 8(not likely given he redistricting that will take place next year). I would love just 1% of the money both sides are spending on this. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2009-05-26 15:32 |
| #5 The people amended the constitution, so henceforth marriage is between a man and a woman. Those of the same gender who married prior to Prop 8 are still legal, because Prop 8 was not (and could not be) ex post facto. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-05-26 15:01 |
| #4 So they agree that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and same-sex marriage is illegal. No. They ruled that the voters did legally change the legal definition of marriage and that Ellen is still legally married. It's sort of liked when they change the requirements for a driver's license. Only you usually don't need to amend the constitution to get the will of the people enacted. And they didn't have any problem overruling 187, so they could have overruled this. But they know it would have meant an even more serious crisis in CA. The reaction to the last election is starting to fester and the establishment knows it's time to let things cool down for a while. But Nancy, Barry and Harry haven't figured it out yet. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-05-26 14:52 |
| #3 What can they do, the people of CA amended the frickin state constitution. That makes it kind of hard to call the law 'unconstitutional', doesn't it? |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2009-05-26 14:41 |
| #2 So they agree that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman and same-sex marriage is illegal. Yet, Ellen is still legally married to her girlfriend. Judges are on crack LOL. |
| Posted by: Zorba 2009-05-26 14:04 |
| #1 I wonder if Perez Hilton is going to publish embarassing photos of the judges. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2009-05-26 13:25 |