CA Supreme Court upholds Prop in 6-1 ruling »
Posted By klynchsf 6 months ago in NewsProp 8 is a valid Constitutional amendment. Future same-sex marriages will be illegal in California; however the existing 18,000 marriages remain valid, opening the door to a slew of lawsuits. A ballot initiative planned for next year is almost certain to remove the amendment.
Read Full Story at examiner.com »
671 Views Share Story 88 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 88 (view all)
-
-
89%
scott42615 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fact is that the 18,000 marriages already conducted before the enactment of Prop 8 leaves the opening for this to be revisited in the future.
Reply
....I guess the rumors that Mayor Gavin Newsom asked the court to delay the announcement of the ruling - so that it wouldn't be on the 30th anniversary of the White Night Riots - were unfortunately true....
For those of us who support marriage equality, this is a setback. ....but it's far from over.... -
89%
mesodude5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Congrats to the 18,000 couples who get to keep their marriage."
Reply
--How fitting that there will be 18,000 marriages that can't be can't be touched by Prop8 and which no Californians will be able to prove have any effect on their marriages whatsoever. Not that they could make legiitimately make the claim even before now but I think it's cool they those marriages wion't be reversed tby the rulling. It's just a matter of time. -
-
89%
UnusualSuspect5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly...a minor set back...it will become possible for gays to marry in many states in the coming years, including California.
Reply
The vote will come before the people again, and as the aging generation dies out, the younger generation will take their place. People will come to realize that, unlike what Locky says, the bonds between gays are also based on love, like heterosexual couples, and not lust.
It will take time, patience, and understanding...but it will be worth the wait... -
100%
epiphannyy5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think the fact that it is legal for some and not for others (the 18,000 existing marriages are allowed to remain unaffected) who are on all other grounds equal (all are simply gay couples wishing to wed) will be how it will be eventually overturned. You can't give rights to some citizens and deny the same rights to otherwise equal citizens and call it Constitutional. The appeals court bowed to public pressure, which is a shame. The courts aren't supposed to be politically or emotionally motivated, but in this case they seem to have allowed the politics of the issue get in the way of the Constitutional legality of the issue at hand. Had this been any other "right" in question (not a hot button topic like gay marriage is today) then there is little chance that some would retain rights while the vast majority of others would be denied them. It simply makes no sense when you look at it in the context of rights for all vs rights for some. The only Constitutional decision is a maintenance of rights for all if the right is Constitutional or rights for none if it is not. The Constitution doesn't support a society where rights for some is protected. So whether you agree with gay marriage or not, this decision by California's Supreme Court is not a sound one.
Reply
-
-
89%
hamy6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am glad for those couples but sad for the hundreds of thousands who are now denied.
Reply
As I said before, I will boycott anything from the state of California now. No raisins. No wine. No produce. No cheeses. No movies. Nothing. I will try my best to make sure that none of my money goes to a state that doesn't see me as a full citizen.-
80%
scott42615 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand and agree with your sentiment, but I don't know if a boycott will do anymore good that boycotting Colorado did in opposition to Amendment 2 in that state in the '90s. I much prefer - and I also think we will ultimately have positive results from - david_nwpa's approach below....
Reply -
-
-
80%
Poulenc6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Agree, dandt. Terrible news, but only a battle lost; the war (forgive the imagery) will be won. And good for all those who were married and will remain so.
Reply
Perhaps we can barter to save California financially in exchange for a reversal of today's decision.
Perhaps there'll be no California in which to deny gay couples equal marriage rights.... -
82%
david_nwpa5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I like the whole boycott California deal. Unfortunately it will be as effective as the American Family Council's boycotts of McDonald's and Ford Motor Co. Instead, I think it necessary that the people of California fight to re-gain what was taken away. Continue to convince voters that this was a battle of fairness and equality and that Californians all lost. I say start amendment proceedings to revoke ALL marriages in California. If one group can have their rights taken away, then ALL groups can.
Reply-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive30 Replies
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive3 Replies
-
-
75%
HateKoolAid5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't believe that six of those judges never heard of the term Tyranny of the Majority. Political philosophers have called it the Achilles Heel of democracy. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of it because they allowed for the Bill of Rights. California tried to address this also by inserting the "equal protection" clause in their constitution but those judges completely ignored it. In short a majority can not deny rights it enjoys to the minority. What if Prop 8 called for a constitutional amendment reinstating slavery?? According to those judges it would be legal because the majority voted for it.
Reply-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive12 Replies
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive3 Replies
-
-
64%
Poulenc5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Locky, your ignorance; your homophobia; your obtuse, retrograde "morality"; your cramped, parochial, misunderstanding of just about everything having to do with people who love and express that love (and sexual interest) differently from the way you (presumably) do, all render your comments sad, pathetic, hurtful and, finally, irrelevant.
Reply
Just because people are free to express their opinions in this forum doesn't mean everyone should.-
86%
jakesguile5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly, very beautifully put Poulenc. Especially that comment above about Judges deciding slaves to be worth 3/5ths of a human being. That's just....ignorant of history. Any ceritified US Gov class in High School (and ANY class that goes into the Constitutional history of the US to any reasonable depth. So you're also looking at 8th grade US History too.........) they'll tell you that it was decided at the 2nd Constitutional Convention as they were drafting provisions to the Constitution. They "had" to put it in or the South threatened to Scecede from the Union. Yeah, they were going to do that from the start all over the counting of slaves. They didn't like the idea that these "ignorant slaves" were going to be counted equally to them during the Census which would throw off the representation.
Reply
-
-
rally-monkeyComment removed: Abusive4 Replies
-
83%
CarinEising5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a sad day for those who are in California. In Ontario Canada gay marriage is legal, and pretty much everyone here gay or straight is in support of it. It's not a moral issue, but rather one of equal rights. Shame on those judges.
Reply -
83%
TimALoftis5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On issues surrounding EQUALITY, the folks on the other side of this issue always lose out. Unfortunately sometimes it takes awhile as we saw in the civil rights marches of the 60's... but EQUALITY always wins out.
Reply
Marriage Equality is on its way to California. Count on it! -
100%
Natureboy5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It may be for the best. Time to work towards next year's referrendum overturning Prop 8.
Reply
I don't agree with Prop 8, but I would prefer the people decide rather than the courts. Overthrowing popular referendums would be a precedent placing medical marijuana laws in jeopardy in several states, and in general it tends to undermine the popular referrendum, which is one of our few remaining tools for direct democracy.
If you follow the judiciary upstream, you are putting the decision in the hands of people like Alito and Clarence Thomas. Do we really want to do that? -
-
67%
willottica5 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Except the 18,000 gays that got married legally.
Reply
That was the biggest oddity of the decision. That gays who were married when it was legal can keep their marriages. But that the state will not recognize out-of-state gay marriages going forward.
In the decision, the court has officially recognized legally obtained gay marriages. They are protected. This would logically seem to expand to legally obtained gay marriages obtained out-of-state... but the judges failed to grasp that?
What about marriages obtained out-of-state during the legal-in-California window? Are they punished because they got married in the wrong state at the time?
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.