Breaking: Prop. 8 upheld
I’ll be darned. Stay tuned for more details.
AP news alert: “California high court upholds gay marriage ban but allows existing same-sex marriages to stand.”
LATimes: “The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law. [Updated at 10:04 a.m.: The court also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.] The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists said they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.”
Translation: They’ll be back.
Will the anti-Prop. 8 mob restrain itself? Stay tuned.
The blacklisters, tolerance bullies, vandals, and religion-bashers will not be forgotten.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Document drop: Lib 9th circuit panel rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional
February 7, 2012 01:09 PM by Michelle Malkin
152 CommentsStop the hate campaign against law-abiding American businesses
February 2, 2011 04:03 AM by Michelle Malkin
244 CommentsCalif. judge overturns voter-approved Prop. 8 gay marriage ban
August 4, 2010 04:51 PM by Michelle Malkin
955 Comments
Dear Cindy & Meghan: Let’s talk about who’s really being silenced over Prop. 8
January 25, 2010 11:36 AM by Michelle Malkin
126 Comments
Supreme Court blocks Prop. 8 show trial plan
January 11, 2010 11:31 AM by Michelle Malkin
34 Comments
Climate of hate: More threats from the gay marriage mob
November 10, 2009 05:24 PM by Michelle Malkin
49 Comments
Left-wing thug of the day
November 5, 2009 01:18 PM by Michelle Malkin
78 CommentsMaine votes down gay marriage
November 4, 2009 01:25 AM by Michelle Malkin
759 Comments
Categories: Proposition 8
Patterico
» Rick Santorum and the two playbooksPundit & Pundette
» King Barack vs. the NonconformistsJustOneMinute
» Cat Blogging In A Harsh New LightNRO
» The Church of ObamaHot Air
» Bishops to Obama: No diceHot Air
» Quotes of the day
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! THANK YOU JESUS!!!
Thank God………… I keep looking at the calendar to see if it’s April Fools Day… but it’s not.
WHAT a relief…….
Good news and bad news. The idiot justices are going to let the earlier gay marriages stand.
And, if they had ruled that the people’s will cannot prevail, then what would they do when the next attempt at Prop 8 fails. Overturn that? I don’t trust their motives.
Nice ! But they left the existing “marriages” in tact. Wonder what convoluted “empathy” based logic they used to come to that conclusion.
Well, that’s kind of like kissing your sister, or your brother, as the case may be.
They left the “existing” alliances (I refuse to call it a marriage) because they are afraid of intimidation by the gay mafia.
Maybe they figured that the 9th Circus Court would overturn it, so why should they bother?
Leaving existing marriage intact will just bring “that’s not fair” types of court clogging cases!
I think what Rush says about the 8th Circuit goes for the CA Supreme Court as well: Whatever they decide, you can bet they got it wrong somehow.
Watch for Mormon churches to be under attack again.
BTW, I ran back over when I saw your Tweet! Thanks!
This ruling makes no sense. Why leave the existing marriages in tact? Either it’s illegal or it’s not.
From what I hear, Prop 8 did not contain a clause to make it retroactive. That enabled the court to allow existing “marriages” intact. That was an unfortunate oversight on the part of the people who drafted the proposition.
Next step. Traditional marriage supporter should bring proposition to ban the “civil unions” before the voters in the next election.
How long until the riots start?
Whoda thunk the Cal Supremes were homophobes?
Let the rioting begin.
Commenter on the SFGATE.com’s website.
Nice. Great approach to take.
I can see it now: thousands of naked men and women indulging in open-air public sex in the streets in San Francisco in response to this ruling. Wait. They already do that at the Folsom Street Fair every year.
Actually it will be more like a community temper tantrum in West Hollywood.
I’m sure the liberals dotting the landscape of Mill Valley, California, just north of San Francisco, will enjoy the naked rioting of offended and outraged men and women tonight. Hopefully lots of lattes and cookies will be consumed beneath multi-colored banners.
There’s more to this than meets the eye. They might well be doing the one step back to jump two ahead tactic for later on. The purples are never going to rest on this till “Gay” (what a slur on a once lovely name!) marriage is the law of the land coast to coast — especially with a philosophical ally in the WH. Be interesting to hear what his Supreme Court pick says about the issue!
James Greenidge
Queens, NY
This was their best shot and they blew it. Just as in Massachusetts where it was looking good for gay marriage, they couldn’t refrain from attempting a cramdown at the last moment which turned public opinion decidedly against gay marriage.
In CA, Prop 8 passed because of black and latino support. The gay groups can’t attack them so they will attack Christian groups and conservatives in general as “haters” and “bigots”.
People are not likely to be in a better mood to be dealing with this in the next two years. We are pretty fed up with whiners out here.
LOOK FOR THOSE PEACE LOVING, TOLERANCE SCREAMING GAYS AND LESBIANS TO HOLD VIOLENT PROTESTS FOR DAYS.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the most hate filled, intolerant and violent people in this country are the homosexuals.
Still waiting for the Republican party and the rest of America to realize there are a lot of conservatives in California, perhaps a majority. Being dominated by an active, liberal minority is what the rest of America will have to get used to under Obama.
The existing marriages were allowed to stand because the courts allowed them before Proposition 8. You can’t retroactively make something illegal that was legal at the time.
I’m glad we partied in Palm Springs last weekend rather than next.
So next stop international court? Because when the U.S. Constitution gets in the way of the minority’s will………
If a democratic process is changed every time a special interest group has a problem, nothing is going to get done. And, quite frankly, if the pro- “gay marriage” side want to act the way they do, they shouldn’t be surprised why people don’t care for them.
A minor observation:
The Prop passed mostly due to the people of CA being tired of judges overturning the results of elections. All the way back to Prop 187 and beyond, judges have been stepping in after the people speak and nullifying what the people chose, even if it passed constitutional muster. (Ex.: Why would illegal non-citizens be elidgable for government benefits? The people said they aren’t, but the judges said they are so viola! they are.)
People out here are getting tired of the whiners, as someone just posted. I wouldn’t be surprised if the gays make such a$$es of themselves that people who might have supported them vote against them if there is a “recall” vote to overturn Prop 8.
There are a lot of conservatives here in CA, however, since the Libtards have illegally gerrymandered the entire state so they can eternally hold onto to their phony power, we are held prisoner by mob rule — the entire state is held hostage by two large cities.
2/3rds a victory.
18,000 “couples” were allowed to keep their status, which was in clear violation of the law, that the people passed.
Incrimentalism works.
Sounds like NC…except we have 3: Charlotte, Raleigh, and Durham. Granted, our large cities aren’t quite as big as yours, but the same rule applies.
The “gay marriage side” doesn’t care if people don’t care for them at the moment, they will not give up until they get what they want and eventually they will get “gay marriage” from the courts and state legislatures. Then by law you will care for them or else!
Why are you “darned”? The result was entirely predictable for anyone who knew how the oral arguments went.
Don’t worry, California. Hawaii will soon be attracting the sexually challenged when it approves same sex marriage, despite the will of its people.
I think it has to do with retroactive application. It was legal at the time, ergo they stand.
And I’m fine with that. I’m really surprised Prop 8 was upheld in California of all places.
The SCOCA tried to split the baby. Not usual, but pretty gutless.
I can, and have, written contracts, durable powers of attorney, and other instruments that give a gay couple all the rights they pretend to strive for in a “marriage”. But that really isn’t their object in this.
They want societal approval of their life-style. They are not looking for rights or tolerance.
Is it possible that the court intentionally grandfathered already married gays to create a specific legal incongruity as a basis for a future appeal? It seems to me, and I have no legal qualification, that this was a clear cut case and they managed to make it more complicated.
Yes, it can. The “frog in boiling water” theory, along with an apathetic public more interested in the culture of “American Idol”.
Thousands gathered outside the Court to protest the Decision. Do these people have jobs???
Can we un-gird our loins now ?
In New Hampshire, a gay marriage bill went down after the Governor – a Democrat, surprisingly – wanted language added explicitly protecting the rights of religious persons, groups, and organizations to decline to perform or acknowledge same-sex marriage.
The pols who voted against it somehow thought it was discriminatory to allow religious groups who oppose gay marriage to say and do so…but that it’s not discriminatory (not to mention unconstitutional) to force said groups to approve of something their faith expressly prohibits.
The turn of events in New Hampshire, and the treatment of Mormons and Catholics in CA, has pretty much solidified my position that this isn’t about “equality” – that could have been done through civil unions with far less opposition – but about forced acceptance, specifically and especially by religious persons and groups who otherwise object to such behavior.
There has not, nor will there be, a convincing argument to the contrary. Not when politicians actively thwart a bill that protects religious freedom. And all those liberals who said such forced acceptance wouldn’t happen…the line for apologies forms to the left.
Maybe. I untrussed my chicken already. Is that the same thing?
How does gerrymandering explain 70% vote for President Hussein ?
As the next Governor of CA said “Whether you like it or not!”
btw, ‘domestic partners’ in CA already have every right married folk have, they just can’t call it ‘marriage’.
Wow! An activist court finally decides to follow the law. Back atcha’, Californians!
Nope…
They sure do. EVERY SINGLE right.
They want it to be called “marriage” so they can get the Federal benefits as well, and claim “equality” and be able to go across state borders and be “recognized” as married.
For your amusement, directly from a Kos Kid:
Easy. You run a whiter-than-white cranky old one-worlder liberal like McCain calling conservatives “haters and bigots” against him.
If you think through the GOP logic that informs us that “electability” trumps principles, it all makes sense. Just don’t fall into the trap of confusing “electability” for “winning elections”. Two different concepts.
corona:
So they actually think stoners will
1) remember to go to the polls
and
2) be inclined to vote in favor of something wholly unrelated to the legalization of pot
Wow.
Easy, we all know it’s a lost cause — they don’t go out to vote anymore.
I think they are wrong about the pot smokers. The vast majority of the pot heads I’ve known are rather the macho type. There is the random weakling here and there, but nothing like the “tsunami” they’re looking for.
A major correction needed here by the phony numbers presented by usa_usa.
Obama won CA at 60.9% (not 70%) of the vote. Let’s not embellish things anymore than your boy in office already has.
I seriously wouldn’t be surprised if one of the ultimate goals was to make any principled objection classified a “hate crime.”
Although I despise the belligerent strong arm tactics of the gay marriage mob, I am becoming just as disgusted with the crowd that calls on God and Jesus to castigate gays.
I see intolerance on both sides of this issue and frankly I no longer care. I think the ideal standard of normalcy that we should strive for is a nuclear famliy with a mom and a dad, but sometimes that just doesn’t happen. Heterosexuals do a plenty fine job of disgracing the institution of marriage to view homosexuals as a threat.
Today’s decision is not a win for anybody. Both sides are going to get their cackles up and begin to wage a war. I wish instead we could have some mutual compassion for each other views. Is it possible to have respect for the traditional famliy and for gay rights at the same time?
It sucks to be a moderate independent because you actually have to think about issues and others views rather than just rely on some dogma handed down to you from your masters.
Marriage is not a “civil right”. Any number of people in our society cannot marry anyone they chose to marry.
Homosexuals are not a distinct class of people. They deserve no greater right to marry whoever they chose than does anyone else.
Marriage is a religious construct. Contract is a legal construct. Under law, a homosexual couple may have every right any other couple may have. They just can’t have the approval of society for the proposition that their union has as much validity as a marriage, which, again, devolves from religion.
Hawkeye54 and Ragspierre, bingo. “Our way or the highway” for some people.
Next the voters will be accused of a hate crime for voting against the homosexual lobby and their minions.
And it’s not right, either. No-fault, easy divorce, encouraging co-habitation, premarital sex…it’s all damaging to marriage which is why a lot of people don’t like or oppose all three.
But we were then told we’re the old-fashioned minority, to shut up because nothing bad would happen, and the slippery slope continues.
My compassion for gay persons is the same as anyone else up to the point where my rights to religious expression and free speech are threatened or infringed upon – which is a none-too-subtle subtext in this debate. Then I have no choice but to circle the wagons, so to speak, and defend my right to worship, think, and talk freely.
Been there, done that…
No, they are polar opposites.
Some people have core beliefs they are unwilling to compromise.
And this is the kind of subtle religious bigotry I’m talking about.
I have a set of beliefs I’m not willing to compromise. I’d be more than happy to explain to you why – religiously and civilly – I oppose gay marriage. No “master” tells me what to do like a mindless drone. I too came to the decisions I did after careful consideration and thought.
Another site I frequent has some text from the decision, and it sounds like they did not want to let it stand. But the question here was whether or not the amendment was properly passed, and they ruled it was, along with a suggestion that the people should make it harder to amend their constitution.
I think now might be a good time for those in California to work on that.
*They did what was anticipated based on the oral arguments; Let the will of the people stand.
*Now the next logical step would be some social engineering; They should clear the population of Catalina Island, replace them with the 18K homosexual couples, and see if they can biologically go forth and multiply; Time elapsed study not required.
On a global level, this was a HUGE win for the people of California. Their Supreme Court, faced with a choice as to whether they could supervene their own opinion over that of the people, expressed by their vote to amend their own constitution, declined to over-ride the democratic process.
That HAS to be a good thing, no matter how you fall on the issue of gay “marriage”.
Ummm… bjc…
turkey basters….
Oh, they will be back again alright. Nothing is final in Democracy today. It means keep re-packaging and pushing agendas until you get the answer you want.
Why don’t they just create a new category called “Gay Marriage”? Hetero marriages can be called “marriages” and homo marriages can be called “gay marriages”.
Any fool can see that 2 men saying they are married would be gay married. What difference would it make? That the state recognizes it? Yeah, the state recognizes GAY marriage which IS different than marriage in terms of who is getting married.
After all, it is all about semantics. Gays can have civil unions, they can get unofficially married. They can enter into contractual relationships. They can do all kinds of things to denote their everlasting love and affection for someone. They just want the word marriage. For what real reason? Wheres the honesty?
Or perhaps gays don’t want to be “different”. Well, I hate to break it to them but…
While we watch California burn, they can sneak Sonyia Sotomayer into the SCOTUS. Perfect distraction!
I left the dogma line open to interpretation. For some the message comes from the church and for some it comes from the party. In many cases there is not a lot of consideration put into the individuals position. At times, this does not reflect well on , religion and conservatives.
I had no intention of disparaging anyones carefully considered and thoughfully expressed religious beliefs. At the same time, I have been asking people to tell me how gay marriage undermines the strength of my traditional nuclear family.
CalifRed – Nice, not so subtle ad hominem and straw man all in one. Why do you assume that just because a person is religious, that they haven’t given it any thought? Does thinking that really manage to make you feel better than and smarter than someone who has a religious belief? If so, I’d say it was you who hasn’t put any thought into it.
What a egotistical assumption that people of religion don’t think for themselves.
This was a cop-out that relies on the faulty premise that this was a “right” being revoked. The law does not concern itself with the religious aspects of marriage; it is a bureaucratically licensed contractual arrangement. The state has the right to revoke that license at any time the issuee no longer complies with the licensing standard.
Even the state attorney general (we know him now to be a backstabbing POS) in phrasing Prop 8 for the ballot included the lie that this was about some “right” rather than a license:
“Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California??
Note however the 2 parts, valid or recognized which proves that continuing to recognize same sex marriages, even if they are “valid,” is still unconstitutional.
Rags: Within the confines of “marriage”, as is expected after the taking of vows.
Are you new here? If so, just do a search on ‘prop 8′ and read through some of the threads… this question has been asked and answered at least 1000 times.
Words mean things. They are sometimes highly meaningful.
Would we want to sit by passively if a group of cowards wanted to have themselves declared “Congressional Medal Of Honor” holders?
I hope not.
Marriage…as it has always been defined in our society and culture, has a meaning. That meaning was so important that the law fashioned special status to foster and uphold the union of a man and woman, largely because the law recognized the fundamental importance of that union and what naturally goes out of it.
That individuals often fall short of the ideal is no reason to allow the ideal to be corrupted according to the wishes of people who repudiate the ideal outright.
They had plenty of help, as EQ mentioned: no-fault divorce, non-judgemental adultery, etc…
The argument that this precludes opposition to same sex marriage is essentially:
“Since we hacked off one of your legs, you aren’t doing a very good job of standing up straight. Therefore we are fully justified in hacking off your other leg.”
The valuation of marriage and the nuclear family as the cornerstone of society is not a binary condition, but a scale that has been relentlessly assaulted and degraded.
Well, along with feminism, cohabitation and no-fault divorce, gay marriage undermines the proven fact that a two-parent, nuclear family is not only beneficial for the parents, but the best situation in which to beget and raise children.
It’s a win-win, especially when the nuclear family is encouraged by society.
Gay marriage is another way of undermining the importance of traditional marriage. It assumes that two women or two men can be interchangeable with a mother and a father.
There is a long term problem with forcing gays into civil unions. The unions in this country have always maintained a radical left agenda and we don’t need more voting union members. Because of this danger, we should instead have all the gays and lesbians married to one another, and hence promote traditional conservative institutions such as marriage.
unions, marriage, civil,…
just words.
Maybe we should have the Cowards Congressional Medal of Honor. I guess we would know that is different from the Congressional Medal of Honor. Of course, cowards would be sure to leave out the first word Coward and misrepresent themselves and aren’t gays trying to do the same thing.
Maybe could could call it homage?
I am homaged to him/her.
By the way, are there rules to who is considered the bride and who is the groom? Are they both brides or both grooms? That is different isn’t it?
They already took care of that. In CA, it is now “Party A and Party B.” No sarc, T-Bone. They really did it, or at least will.
While “Party A and Party B” may appear on legal docs. Its still up to the couple as to who will be dubbed the husband and the wife. My guess, the more feminine looking of the two most likely will be refered to as the “wife” : )
However, there are differences between Laws and Constitutional Amendments. The US Constitution says there are to be no ex post facto LAWS. Nothing is said about Amendments.
As another poster pointed out… if Amendments couldn’t be ex post facto, then the 13th Amendment wouldn’t have freed ANY slaves! It would have just prevented any new slaves from coming into the system.
The same thing applies here… or should.
It will be interesting to see if the people who rioted after Prop 8 passed will riot again. If they have any sense of losing the battle to win the public relations war, they will remain quiet.
God is smiling today .
No ex post facto laws unless, for political gain, you want to tax bonuses already received at 90%.
Are you listening Tom McClintock?
Don’t forget “Calder vs Bull” in which the SCOTUS ruled that Ex post facto law applied to criminal cases only, not civil. Other rulings upheld that too…especially in taxes. However, I think it should have been retroactive, but will agree with the court on this one. At least it is a step in the right direction. This whole business is not about “marriages”; it’s about getting benefits, especially from the government. Next thing you’ll see is people wanting to marry their dogs. Oh, sorry, seen that already.
I guess those activist will just have to swallow this ruling and drive on.
hmmm bad visual.
Getting benefits? I don’t hear that mentioned very often. I take it that means Social Secuity and tax law benefits. Would those be available in Civil Unions?
I ‘ll bet those gays that didn’t get married when it was legal are wishing they had. They threw away a lot of potential benefits.
Oddly(?), the only reason that there were ANY gay marriages was the mistake of this same court in overturning the first vote on the WORD marriage. That same court refused to place a stay on their own mistake, until the last election, creating the silly window of ‘marriages’.
This ‘fight’ is only about a word, not any actualy ‘rights’, just a word.
The only reason that the last constitutional change was even as close as the 52% number was the terribly misleading way in which the ammendment was placed on the ballot.
Look for the next attempt to take over the word ‘marriage’ to lose by 60-70%.
As for ‘judicial activism’ – this has to be the only case I can recall where the ‘winning’ judicial side felt it necessairy to explain their actions as ‘something they did not like’. Clearly, they finally saw the threat to their own court that judicial activism will ultimatly cause.
Too bad Obama has not figured this out, yet.
This ruling really concerned me and it had nothing to do with gay marriage.
When the people have voted on an issue within the framework or their state constitution and the will of the people is considered supreme in that document, if the court would have overturned the will of the people, it would have been nothing less than a coup de tat perpetrated by the court.
If the court were to overturn a direct vote by the people and the Governor and Legislature would have supported the court, then you would have had the elected government seizing control from the people. At what point does that end? At what point is any vote of the people considered obligatory to those in control? What happens to the right of petition if the court considers the basis of the petition not to its liking?
There would seem only one recourse for the people of California at that point. And utilization of that recourse would have been a very sad day for this country.
You mean like prop 187?
Homosexuals can adopt each other, in many jurisdictions. They then get SS benefits if the other passes away. They can also buy life insurance, naming the other as beneficiary.
I can’t speak to tax law, as I don’t do that stuff. I have a blind-spot…
Red, we don’t need to call on God to castigate gays, he is perfectly able to do it himself.
But as for me, I’m more a ‘live and let live’ person. Gay people are human beings and, in my mind, are entitled to the same rights as other human beings. Civil unions should take care of that. However, the angry radical push to change centuries of religious tradition is scary. I wonder if there is not a deeper and more hidden agenda, like suing churches for discrimination because they refused to marry gays.
And in answer to another one of your questions: there is a least one significant study, I think in Norway, that indicates similar changes to marriage law resulted in fewer traditional families and thus more children living in single parent homes. And as we all know, many studies both here and abroad show children from single parent homes are statistically more likely to have problems. (Sorry, I dont have time for a citation right now, gotta run.)
This is an amendment to the states constitution, the supreme court is bound to uphold the constitution, I don’t think the court had much choice, but this Ca. we’re talking about, if only prop 187 had been an amendment.
What a bonehead decision.
“A majority of this court finds that if you are a heterosexually challenged couple wishing to join together as a couple in California, it is unlawful to issue you a “Marriage” certificate.”
“This does not preclude you from being “joined” in a domestic partnership, as a loving, nurturing couple, however. In the event that you were mistakenly allowed to join in a state of marriage during that brief period after the first amendment was overturned (to show our Progressive contempt for California voters), and the passage of Proposition 8, your here-to-for called “Marriage” will still be recognized as a valid union recognized by the State of California, even though others in your classification of sexuality will be prohibited from using that term, as it is reserved exclusively to indicate a heterosexual union.”
“Feel free to file as many lawsuits challenging this ruling as you deem necessary, searching for a loophole that might overturn the people’s mandate, anew. We will bend over for you
as much as possible.”Sincerely,
The California State Supreme Court (Jesters)
This is like saying, murder is illegal and immoral, but if you’ve committed a homicide prior to this law’s passage, well then…”Never Mind.”
The legacy of “Bird Droppings” continue (you know, mis-Justice Diane Bird?}
Fixed it for you
On May 26th, 2009 at 1:43 pm, englishqueen01 said:
You are absolutely right! They want to force churches, religious persons and groups to accept and acknowledge their unholy version of marriage. Maybe they’re seeking absolution?
I was on my way to work, almost there actually, when this came down. KFBK out of Sacramento was standing by at the courthouse, but it apparently came over the AP wires first. The reporter at the Courthouse stated that a woman walked out of the courthouse with the ruling, and basically paraded it around with pride to all those in attendance.
The streets came alive tonight with both pro and con Prop 8 people. It was relatively calm, however.
I was actually surprised that the Court allowed this to stand. When you consider all the things that the Court here in California has overturned in the past, I found it amazing that they actually upheld this, as well as allowed those that were married prior to the election…when gay marriage was still technically illegal…to stand.
Again, I have never stated which side I was on, and I do not ever plan to. I have several friends…good friends…who are gay and even they are split on the issue.
My real concern is the Nazi-esque tactics of the Anti-* crowd.
Look at what they did to those who supported and gave money to the Yes on 8 Campaign. What do you think that has done to any and all further elections on this issue? They have systematically forced many people out of their jobs, lost people income etc. just because they did not agree with them. Is anyone thinking that a further election where this is brought onto the ballot will be anything even closely resembling a fair election? Is anyone thinking there will be the slightest amount of personal or business donations made to any anti-gay marriage groups from now on?
Liberals only believe in equality and fairness so long as it relates to their cause. If anyone is opposed to what they want, they are fair game for all types of discriminatory actions. Amazing in this case, for it is they who are screaming about how this was discriminatory against a “protected minority” and then turn around and partake in activities that, were they conducted on GLBT businesses or peope, would be considered “hate crimes” r worse.
What the courts did was not religious. What the courts did was not discrimination. What they did was something rare in California. They upheld a legal election where the majority spoke. While the anti-8 crowd claim the court discriminated against the minority, they are, in essence, calling for the discrimination of the majority. Yeah…hypocrisy is their creed.
Out of curiosity, what do folks here think about homosexuals marrying people of the opposite gender for convenience or insurance sake?
It is wrong for ANYONE to wed for dishonest reasons.
– sbw999
Come on now, did you ask this about the Tea Party protestors?
It really bothers me that here in California, we can ammend the constitution of the state like this with a mere majority. A constitutional ammendment should have required a 2/3 majority. Constitutional ammendment by initiative process, as occurs in California, opens the door for tyranny of the majority.
I can’t believe more of the commentors here aren’t disturbed by this, understanding that it could just as easily be used to ammend the state constitution in a manner you oppose.