Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098
mayorsam@mayorsam.org

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Prop 8 Ruling Due Shortly

Hat tip to Zach Behrens, you can watch it here: http://cbs5.com/cbsnewslive

UPDATE: KPIX reports Supreme Court upholds Prop 8; existing marriages valid.  The fight continues.

Labels:

21 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Prop 8 has been upheld; doubtless, both parties will go to the US Supreme Court because the California Court recognized the 18,000 gay marriages as being valid, so both sides will appeal.

May 26, 2009 10:07 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Our state supreme court had the opporunity to do something truly significant in the area of equality.

Unfortunately they didn't have the guts.

May 26, 2009 10:10 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

There is no basis for an appeal to the US Supreme Court and why the hell would you want to go there now anyway?

The decision by the California Supreme Court is correct. Despite the heat and sympathy many might feel, it would not be proper for the Court of overrule a decision by the people. Gay legal activists knew they were making a dubious argument so no one in the gay community should get too upset by this decision. This decision respects the proper balance of power between the judicial branch and a vote of the people.

That said, let us now gather the signatures to overturn Prop 8 and install marriage equality as a civil right in the California Constitution.

The younger generation is on board. It's the older ones, clinging to their guns and religion, who need assurance that the world will not fall apart if two people who love each other are allowed to get married.

May 26, 2009 10:53 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:07
Not everyone is gay.

Respect the LAW!

May 26, 2009 11:06 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I am not gay and I do respect the law. This is one law that needs changed. That IS why you post here right? There are things about laws that need changing?

Go gays in 2010. Get it on the ballot again. That's what our legislators do anyway. They just keep tweaking the language and putting it back before the voters until it passes.

With Obama on the ballot, of course it brought out all of the conservative blacks and Latinos, where homosexuality is way more of a cultural issue than it is in America. We know why Prop 8 passed.

So what next? Keep getting it back on the ballot until it passes because we know we can beat the "True Values" religious zealots.

May 26, 2009 12:35 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

10:10 a.m.

One person's "guts" is another's "political expediency."

California has one of the most liberal state supreme courts on the planet. If there had been ANY way to strike down Prop. 8 legally and have it stick, they would have done it. Showing "guts" as you define them would have lead to nothing but a useless merry-go-round of suits that would have ended up with the same results down the road, after months or years more of acrimony and accusation.

It takes more "guts" to obey the laws approved by the people of the state, until such time as they THEMSELVES want them changed, than to make a political football of something so volatile as the Atty. General/candidate for governor has done, as well as our own City Clowncil.

(And why is it that it's always the liberal "democrats" -- the "party of the people" that are the first to want to throw away the actual bonafide will of the people, because they -- the elites -- know better what's good for us?)

There's a word for that frame of mind. It does end in "cratic" -- "to rule" but it doesn't start with any form of the root term "demos" - from the Greek for "the common people".

May 26, 2009 12:35 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yeah, zach or anybody else who reads the state's Bar publications. Dummie

May 26, 2009 1:02 PM  

Blogger Verleen said:

I don't think ones sexual orientation should matter, everyone should be able to have the same legal status for their relationships!

May 26, 2009 1:52 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This leaves a small group of people who are already legally married. If they have kids, those kids will be in a very isolated group, while kids of other gays won't have legally married parents. Not good for the kids.

Never mind that some think gays shouldn't have any, they do anyway.

May 26, 2009 2:14 PM  

Anonymous rreedpc said:

It may seem that overturning the will of the people would go against the standards of the this country, but we have always looked out for the minority. Remember, there was a time when a majority of the country thought that slavery was alright.

Speaking as a straight man, happily married for nine years this year, I don't see how gay marriage threatens straight marriage. Nobody's going to force you do marry anybody you don't want to.

May 26, 2009 2:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It is law.

May 26, 2009 3:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

There is a difference between a Democracy and a Republic.

In a Republic, the rule of law governs and the minority is protected from the majority by the rule of law.

In a straight Democracy, the majority rules and can opress the minority.

We are NOT a Democracy; we are a Republic.

But, the minority may not opress the majority, either.

The Gays keep marching and ruining our traffic in LA; they do it on purpose and at rush hour when people are trying to get home to their families.

They are not making any friends; they have turned me away from them by their persistant and rude, thoughtless actions.

May 26, 2009 3:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

And please for the love of god, don't ask what will happen next - will people want to marry their pets? Who cares. Seriously, who freaking cares if some old woman wants to marry her chihuahua. It is really of no significance to any of us.

And if I hear the phrase "sanctity of marriage" one more time, I'm going to scream. What is so freaking holy about a marriage? Divorces are as prevalent as marriages. People cheat daily. PRIESTS fondle little boys. Pastors get hookers, then preach about the sanctity of marriage.

I think we all knew what the outcome of the CA Supreme Court would be and it will come around again and we will win.

I'm straight, but don't care what anybody else does.

thismessageapprovedbyonestraightpersonwho hasneverhadthedesiretomarryadogeither

May 26, 2009 3:55 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Well you turn me away with your persistent misspelling of the word "persistent".

May 26, 2009 3:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What is so freaking holy about a marriage?

THEN WHY FIGHT THE LAW.

May 26, 2009 5:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Because gays want to be married for other reasons. Not because of the holiness of being married. Don't be stupid. And you're not good enough to carry off witty...

Atheists want to be married. I doubt it's because of the "holy union".

I'm glad people fought to overturn that silly old illegal marriages for bi-racial couples too. If they were religious, they probably thought that their god wanted them to love everybody and wouldn't care if blacks married whites or Asians married Germans or anybody who wanted to get married,could.

May 26, 2009 5:44 PM  

Blogger Phil Jennerjahn said:

What is going on in WeHo?
Tactical Alert??
I saw 20 squad cars go racing into WeHo.

Massive helicopter noise.

May 26, 2009 8:43 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Koretz claims victory with 100 ballots left to count.

PAUL KORETZ                18,286           50.98
DAVID T VAHEDI            17,584           49.02

May 26, 2009 9:58 PM  

Blogger Rita Of Sunland/Wally Wharton said:

Well, I guess for now they'll have to shelve the publication of "Heather has Two Obammies." Woo-Hoo!!

May 27, 2009 1:03 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Gavin Newsom said it best when referring to gay marriage. This is the case he referred to. .
In a most ironically named case "Loving v. Virginia," Richard and Mildred Loving -- an inter-racial married couple -- were arrested in the early morning of 1959-JUL-11 by police who entered into their bedroom. They had been married five weeks before in the adjacent District of Columbia. The couple pleaded guilty to a felony under Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1662. 5 They could have each received a 5 year prison term; instead, they were partly exiled from their home state for 25 years. Each was allowed to return to Virginia, but not together. The judge apparently ignored the principle of separation of church and state as well as the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution when delivering his decision

The law changed on this issue and someday the law will change on same sex marriages

May 27, 2009 6:54 AM  

Anonymous g said:

GAY RIGHTS LIKE ALL CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION WILL BE RECOGNIZED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THIS IS BUT A BUMP IN THAT ROAD. LIKE VOTERS RIGHTS IN THE SOUTH , WOMEN SUFFERAGE AND ROE VS WADE. IT'S JUST HARD FOR SOME TO HERE!!

May 27, 2009 3:10 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Advertisement

Advertisement