Prop 8 upheld.
May 26, 2009 by Dusty
From McClatchy:
The California Supreme Court ruled today that voters’ ban on gay marriages should prevail, but allowed to stand marriages that occurred in the brief window before the vote was taken.
The court majority rejected Attorney General Jerry Brown’s challenge that Proposition 8 violates “inalienable” rights of same-sex couples to pursue marriage.
The court’s opinion, a summary of the ruling says, “declares that the identification of a right as ‘inalienable’ has never been understood to mean that such right is exempt from any limitation or to preclude the adoption of a constitutional amendment that restricts the scope of such a right.”
The 6-1 majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George – who wrote May’s opinion that paved the way for gay marriages – and was joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin and Carol A. Corrigan. Kennard also filed a separate concurring opinion.
The 6-1 opinion rejected the challenge to Proposition 8. The judges unanimously upheld the same-sex marriages that took place during the five-month window when such unions were legal.
Justice Carlos R. Moreno agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 only applies going forward, but he dissented by concluding that the measure is an unlawful amendment to California’s constitution.
We can not let this stand. We simply Can Not!
Sphere: Related ContentRelated posts:
- 9th circuit tells neocon homophobes to take a hike. From Jurist: A three-judge panel of the US Court of...
- Federal Judge rules Prop 8 case can proceed From Jurist: A federal judge on Wednesday refused to dismiss...
- Sotomayor-Muy Bueno!!!! What a great way to wake up this morning..to the...
- From our Dept of WTF? SCOTUS has ruled that corporations now have civil rights. I...
- Iowa Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban! I shit you not m’dear reader….an Iowa court ruled that...
Homophobes everywhere are rejoicing, but it will be short-lived.
Interesting, though, that California’s initiative process can amend its constitution. The time is ripe for a ballot proposition to establish a unicameral legislature in Sacramento. I prefer throwing out the Assembly bums, because there are more of them, but will settle for throwing out the Senate bums.
That our constitution can be changed by just a majority vote is very wrong to me. Shouldn’t it be a higher percentage of voters for something that important, changing our constitution?
Then, to let the 18,000 already married folks stay married..wtf?
Jerry Brown fucked up. He was the one that represented the anti-8 folks. When is the last time that jackass tried a case in court?
Dusty´s last blog post..Sotomayor’s cases show us she is what?
“Then, to let the 18,000 already married folks stay married..wtf?”
You’d think that would just make grounds for another legal challenge right away when a gay couple wants what other gays have, but are being denied by the Supreme’s ruling. Did they think this through?
That was the first thing I thought of Robb..so it seems to easy, but I know the LGBT community or their supporters are not going to let this drop. I think a big-time lawyer just signed up for this case, he was part of the Gore v Bush crew.
Can’t think of his name at the moment damn it. David Boyles?
Here it is, and his name is Boies
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_12453649?nclick_check=1
Irony alert-these guys faced off against each other in Gore v Bush. But now, they have common ground..fighting the homophobes