Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The California Supreme Court ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional. It never gave gays the right to marry.
Furthermore - Proposition 8 was already being organized prior to the CSC's ruling. Proposition 8 amended the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman - and it passed. The elected state officials refused to defend it and that is how Hollingsworth vs. Perry developed - with the supporters of the initiative defending it, which SCOTUS ruled could not be done.
Californians have stated clearly twice that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. No legislation has ever been signed that legitimizes gay marriage in California. The state policy is based on an activist judges order - a judge who was biased since he was a gay man.
The will of the people has been trampled upon.
The elected state officials may not pick and choose what laws they will defend. They are obligated to uphold the law - and Proposition 8 was not just a state law, it was a constitutional amendment.
The SCOTUS decision set a bad precedent - now elected officials can decide what laws they will defend, and can thumb their noses at the people who they are supposed to serve.
The decision also is a direct attack on California's sovereignty and its initiative process - which has served the state well for 100 years.
It is a shameful day, a slap across the face of democracy, and an affront to the liberty of free people to govern themselves.
The fight is not over - and marriage will be defended by decent people - despite the attacks by the gay army.
"(We have only yet begun to fight)."
The people also can not vote in unconstitutional laws.
Go ahead you can cry. Equality is once again the law in your state.
The Civil Rights of consenting Gay adults to marry is not up for the "will of the people". I guess the American people should have voted on issues like abortions or the right of Women and blacks to vote too?
This is why we have a Constitution!
The differences is gay marriage has not been recognized as a right in the federal courts. If California never gave the right to gays then they wouldn't have them now.
If you are claiming that it is a natural right, perhaps you are correct. But that has not be ruled on on an absolute level.
What the Constitution giveth, the Constitution can taketh away. I.E. liberals attempting to scratch out corporations as citizens to not allow the ACLU to file lawsuits.
The differences is gay marriage has not been recognized as a right in the federal courts. If California never gave the right to gays then they wouldn't have them now.
If you are claiming that it is a natural right, perhaps you are correct. But that has not be ruled on on an absolute level.
What the Constitution giveth, the Constitution can taketh away. I.E. liberals attempting to scratch out corporations as citizens to not allow the ACLU to file lawsuits.
No, but marriage has, and the constitution says that no state shall make laws that abridge the privileges of American citizens, nor deny them equal protection under the law.
Not allowing same sex couples is discrimination based on the gender of the people entering into the marriage.
The differences is gay marriage has not been recognized as a right in the federal courts. If California never gave the right to gays then they wouldn't have them now.
California never gave gays the right to marry.
Twice - in 2000 and 2008 - the citizens of the state clearly stated that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
No state legislative bill has ever been signed that allowed gay marriage.
A biased, gay, activist district judge is responsible for what is taking place now.
Twice - in 2000 and 2008 - the citizens of the state clearly stated that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
No state legislative bill has ever been signed that allowed gay marriage.
A biased, gay, activist district judge is responsible for what is taking place now.
And yet there were couples that were legally married in the state of Ca. prior to the prop 8 ordeal.
If something is legal, it is not illegal. So, same sex couples had the legal right to marry in Ca.
The California Supreme Court ruled Proposition 22 unconstitutional. It never gave gays the right to marry.
Furthermore - Proposition 8 was already being organized prior to the CSC's ruling. Proposition 8 amended the state constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman - and it passed. The elected state officials refused to defend it and that is how Hollingsworth vs. Perry developed - with the supporters of the initiative defending it, which SCOTUS ruled could not be done.
Californians have stated clearly twice that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. No legislation has ever been signed that legitimizes gay marriage in California. The state policy is based on an activist judges order - a judge who was biased since he was a gay man.
The will of the people has been trampled upon.
The elected state officials may not pick and choose what laws they will defend. They are obligated to uphold the law - and Proposition 8 was not just a state law, it was a constitutional amendment.
The SCOTUS decision set a bad precedent - now elected officials can decide what laws they will defend, and can thumb their noses at the people who they are supposed to serve.
The decision also is a direct attack on California's sovereignty and its initiative process - which has served the state well for 100 years.
It is a shameful day, a slap across the face of democracy, and an affront to the liberty of free people to govern themselves.
The fight is not over - and marriage will be defended by decent people - despite the attacks by the gay army.
"(We) have only yet begun to fight."
I remember some similar sentiments expressed a few decades ago. Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever. How did that work out?
It is beyond entertaining to witness the gnashing of teeth and the pledges to keep tilting at the equality windmill from the committed bigots.
Which would have taken away rights that were already given to same sex couples.
Are you not reading the thread?
No rights were given - and no rights were taken away.
The California Supreme Court cannot "give rights". It can rule a law unconstitutional - which it did. The citizens of the state subsequently amended their constitution - a process that was in place BEFORE the CSC ruling. An activist judge then overruled the will of the people, the elected state officials failed to perform their duty to defend state laws, the supporters of the initiative took up the defense, and the SCOTUS dismissed the case on a technicality.
California has never given gays the right to marry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
