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.

Trackbacks

1. ScoopThis.Org » California Supreme Court to issue Proposition 8 decision today.
2. JammieWearingFool
3. California’s Proposition 8 upheld but……. | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
4. Strange California Supreme Court decision - gay marriage | Radio Vice Online
5. California Supreme Court Approves Prop 8 » Pirate’s Cove
6. CA Supremes uphold Prop 8 « Sister Toldjah
7. Breaking News! – California Marriage Amendment Upheld « Designated Conservative
8. California Supreme Court Ruling on Prop 8 (Traditional Marriage) :: Daily Uprising :: Join the Conservative Counter-Revolution!
9. Camelot devotees make very poor investigative reporters « Jim Blazsik
10. CA Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8 « Wellsy’s World
11. Prop 8 Upheld, Libtards Reveal New Strategy To Defeat It. « Rantings of mine
12. The Marriage Debate: A Waste Of Time « NEOAVATARA
13. The Rigors Of A Day In The Life Of A Liberal « OutOfTheBlu
14. Prop 8 & Gay Marriages Upheld | Everyday Thoughts Collected
15. Rhymes With Right
16. First Things — The Anchoress

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #707758
   On May 26th, 2009 at 6:11 pm, Speakup said:

   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.

2. #707770
   On May 26th, 2009 at 6:41 pm, right_on said:

   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?}

3. #707783
   On May 26th, 2009 at 6:57 pm, Khyris said:

   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.” feel free to continue doing so

   Fixed it for you

4. #707832
   On May 26th, 2009 at 7:47 pm, Little Ma said:

   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?

5. #707986
   On May 27th, 2009 at 2:07 am, RetFireman said:

   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.

6. #708039
   On May 27th, 2009 at 6:50 am, Cameron said:

   Out of curiosity, what do folks here think about homosexuals marrying people of the opposite gender for convenience or insurance sake?

7. #708052
   On May 27th, 2009 at 7:39 am, RetFireman said:

   It is wrong for ANYONE to wed for dishonest reasons.

8. #708192
   On May 27th, 2009 at 10:50 am, Yashmak said:

   Thousands gathered outside the Court to protest the Decision. Do these people have jobs???

   – 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.