Now we see if voting does anything or not
- Thread starter Ollie
- Start date
I thought we Vote because majority rules, that makes it a right.. NO??
Is it my right to Kill someone??? NO ..... Why Because we have rules.
.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Personally could care less if the fudge packers want to get married.
I am just curious to see how far the courts will go to circumvent the constitution.
The interesting thing about this is it's a california state constitution change.
Not just a law.
Gay marriage ban upheld but existing unions can remain
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E2DO00&show_article=1
I am kind of surprised. I figured the california left would just toss it out.
Unfortunetly, now we have to listen to them whine.
They can always move to another state that allows it.
That is the wonders of the US.
If one state says no, the other states can say yes and those people can simply move there.
I don't think this should be something settled by the Feds.
It should be a state thing. Same as welfare. Should be done state by state.
Yup.
California high court upholds gay marriage ban
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.
The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.
"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.
The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they chanted "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.
Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8.
The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.
"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."
The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters.
That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.
"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.
California high court upholds gay marriage ban
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.
The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.
"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.
The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they chanted "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.
Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8.
The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.
"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."
The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters.
That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.
"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.
They surprised me last week also with this!
California Rejects Higher Taxes—Obama, Reid and Pelosi Should Take Note
But does this mean California will be next in line for a bail out?
They are definently good at that!
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
They have already asked.
Funny how they are talking about cutting schools, cutting fire departments, cutting police, but you don't hear anything about cutting welfare or other out of control social programs.
can't cut the programs, if they did that all the illegals might go home
Since when is 6 to 1 a split decision? Ohhh in the media.
The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.
The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.
From Hollywood stars and Liberals to Anarchy. What's next, the big one where half the state falls into the Pacific 
Just because it is a majority doesn't make it right.
Who cares?
Who cares?
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
I am looking at it from a states rights issue.
I really don't care one way or the other.
I think the issue should be handled on a state by state basis.
If say California says no, and Nevada says yes. Problem solved.
Move to Nevada.
I agree 100% that this is a state's right. Feds should stay out of this, but likewise when one state says they support it and it is legal our Federal Constitution says that EVERY state MUST honor another states laws. Right?
Last edited:
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Yes and no.
Depends if it is a "Law" or not.
To give someone the right to do something in Colorado doesn't mean they have that same right in Wyoming.
For instantce. There was an old law on the books that stated while driving an automobile in wyoming you had to stop at all intersections and honk your horn 3 times, get out and physically look all directions to make sure you weren't going to scare any horse back riders or buggies. That law wasn't enforced in any other state surrounding it. That was a wyoming specific law.
Current example.
Montana. It is now legal to buy a firearm in montana as long as you live in montana and the weapon was purchased in montana without going thru the gun registry.
That is a Montana specific law. No other state is currently doing that.
Depends if it is a "Law" or not.
To give someone the right to do something in Colorado doesn't mean they have that same right in Wyoming.
For instantce. There was an old law on the books that stated while driving an automobile in wyoming you had to stop at all intersections and honk your horn 3 times, get out and physically look all directions to make sure you weren't going to scare any horse back riders or buggies. That law wasn't enforced in any other state surrounding it. That was a wyoming specific law.
Current example.
Montana. It is now legal to buy a firearm in montana as long as you live in montana and the weapon was purchased in montana without going thru the gun registry.
That is a Montana specific law. No other state is currently doing that.
Similar threads
