Community | May 26, 2009 | 10 comments

California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30936298/

Image
Future_America
California's highest court on Tuesday upheld the state's gay-marriage ban but allowed existing same-sex marriages to stand.

The California Supreme Court handed down its decision in a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn November's Proposition 8. Gay-rights advocates maintain the ballot measure so dramatically revised the state constitution's equal protection clause that it needed the Legislature's approval before it could be put to voters.

The seven-member court upheld the initiative as a constitutional expression of the electorate's will, but also decided to sustain the marriages of an estimated 18,000 gay couples who wed before the measure passed with 52 percent of the vote.
  1. groups:
    Community,   US News,   LGBT,   U.S. News,   1 more
  2. tags:
    News,  US News,  California,  GLBT,  16 more
  3.     
    |

10 comments // California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8

  • themotivateddropout
  • RCS
    • 0
      RCS  

    • An UncleChalab in Yemen, or Sudan, or Somalia, or some other enlightened country that fully respects the humans rights of all its citizens could just as easily post:

      "The fact is, the women's rights agenda that calls for an end to female genital mutilation demands a fundamental shift in the way we've thought about sex and morals for a very, very long time. It literally seeks to wipe away several thousand years of social and religious tradition. So it would be crazy for us NOT to have a free and open debate about its consequences." Bernard Goldberg, 'Arrogance', p. 168,169

    • 2 years ago
  • unclecharlie
  • unclecharlie
    • 0
      unclecharlie  

    • "The fact is, the gay agenda demands a fundamental shift in the way we've thought about sex and morals for a very, very long time. It literally seeks to wipe away several thousand years of social and religious tradition. So it would be crazy for us NOT to have a free and open debate about its consequences." Bernard Goldberg, 'Arrogance', p. 168,169

    • 2 years ago
  • zoboxrox
    • 0
      zoboxrox  
    • Image

    • The Justices had no choice but to rule this way. anything else would have been tyranny. read about why here, and blame the lawyers for not coming up with a better argument. not the judges, who voted in favor of gay marriage just one year ago.

    • 2 years ago
  • twitterbot
    • 0
      twitterbot  

    • @Marnster on twitter says "I am very disappointed w/ the decision of Prop8. All individuals shld share the right 2 marry whomever they choose ."

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  

    • uncle charlie...what a silly thing to say (?)

      first, we aren't a democracy, we are a republic. The purpose of the constitution is to protect the minority from the will of the majority. That's over.

      That said, this will be overturned soon if they are going to let people stay married.

      Moreover, I like how people actually argue that it's their constitutional right to take away the rights of others simply because they are different. Such sick perversion will hopefully disappear from mainstream america by the time I am old.

    • 2 years ago
  • twitterbot
  • unclecharlie
    • 0
      unclecharlie  

    • Why anyone would want to overrule the "constitutional expression of the electorate's will" is truly the bigot. When the people have spoken, and you STILL try to disregard their voice, then this is not democracy, it's socialism.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos