Californian Supreme Court to hear Prop 8 case, delaying decision on gay marriage until 201 - Polidicks

The legal saga over gay marriage in California looks set to drag on for another year. Last night, the Californian Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the backer of Proposition 8, the 2008 voter initiative that banned gay and lesbian marriages, has the right to appeal a lower court decision that the ban was unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Californian Supreme Court if Protect Marriage, the backer of the original ballot, known as Prop 8, can step in to defend the ban as state officials have refused to defend the ban on gay marriage. The confusion stems from a ruling by Judge Vaughn Walker in August, which ruled that the ban on gay marriage in California was wrong. The decision came after a lengthy “trial” of the arguments for and against allowing gay couples to marry. “The evidence presented at trial and the position of the representatives of the State of California show that an injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8 is in the public’s interest,” Judge Walker wrote at the time. He initially ordered for gay marriages to resume in the state with almost immediate effect. Unusually, the official ‘defendants’ of that appeal, then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney-General Jerry Brown, refused to defend the ban. So, the groups who supported the introduction of Prop 8 have been arguing that they have the right to defend the ban on marriage. The Supreme Court has now asked for written arguments to be submitted between March 14 and May 9 and pledged to hold a hearing in September, at the earliest. A decision would then be made within 90 days. If the Supreme Court then decides that Protect Marriage have the right to defend the case, then it will return to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. If the Supreme Court rules that the group do not have right to defend the case, it is likely to reinstate gay marriage in California. Either way, a final decision looks unlikely to be reached during 2011. - [url]http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/02/17/californian-supreme-court-to-hear-prop-8-case-delaying-decision-on-gay-marriage-until-2012/[/url] god fucking dam it!

"for liberty and justice for all" my ass.

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;28153667]why the hell do people think gay marriage should be illegal this is one reason i never say the pledge[/QUOTE] I dont too

NOT UNTIL 201 OH GOd

[QUOTE=Lebowski;28154063]NOT UNTIL 201 OH GOd[/QUOTE] 2012 - it got cut off

ugh just let it go you religious nut cases

I like how the only dumb that meatpuppets post got was from a user named "holy crusader"

I understand that human rights takes time in this country, but it is getting to a point where no people should have to wait for what is due to them. The arguments against marriage are just as void of facts and as baseless as that which was used against the blacks pre-1960's.

[QUOTE=thisispain;28154448]ugh just let it go you religious nut cases[/QUOTE] But don't you understand how adversely this affects me?! Yeah, me neither.

Oh for fuck's sake!

california is gay

My opinion of American right-wingers for the last two months can be summed up with the new word I just made, "cuntfuckbitchhellassshit".

Politics needs to stop being controlled by religion.

But see here, it was the people's vote. They voted to block gay marriage. It is their decision. If judges can then go and say what the [i]majority of the people[/i] voted for is invalid, that is a direct infringement on our rights. The people's decision may not be right, but it isn't the court's duty to repeal what the people have voted for. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] We might as well be a dictatorship if that is the case.

[QUOTE=>VLN<;28156030]But see here, it was the people's vote. They voted to block gay marriage. It is their decision. If judges can then go and say what the [i]majority of the people[/i] voted for is invalid, that is a direct infringement on our rights. The people's decision may not be right, but it isn't the court's duty to repeal what the people have voted for. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] We might as well be a dictatorship if that is the case.[/QUOTE] When people vote for a violation of civil rights it is the court's duty to overturn it. If people voted for slavery to come back, would you just say "well the majority said it's okay so it is"?

[QUOTE=>VLN<;28156030]But see here, it was the people's vote. They voted to block gay marriage. It is their decision. If judges can then go and say what the [i]majority of the people[/i] voted for is invalid, that is a direct infringement on our rights. The people's decision may not be right, but it isn't the court's duty to repeal what the people have voted for. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] We might as well be a dictatorship if that is the case.[/QUOTE] well here's the thing sugarcup, the founding fathers hated democracy. that's why the concept of majority rules, minority rights exist if it was up to the people's vote, civil rights would not have been enacted

You know, the whole concept of a constitution is quite undemocratic

[QUOTE=>VLN<;28156030]But see here, it was the people's vote. They voted to block gay marriage. It is their decision. If judges can then go and say what the [i]majority of the people[/i] voted for is invalid, that is a direct infringement on our rights. The people's decision may not be right, but it isn't the court's duty to repeal what the people have voted for. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] We might as well be a dictatorship if that is the case.[/QUOTE] But it's also infringing on the rights of others to have this proposition in effect. So what do you suggest we do?

[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;28156165]But it's also infringing on the rights of others to have this proposition in effect. So what do you suggest we do?[/QUOTE] Keeping it infringes on the rights of a minority Repealing it infringes on the rights of nobody whatever can we do

[QUOTE=>VLN<;28156030]But see here, it was the people's vote. They voted to block gay marriage. It is their decision. If judges can then go and say what the [i]majority of the people[/i] voted for is invalid, that is a direct infringement on our rights. The people's decision may not be right, but it isn't the court's duty to repeal what the people have voted for. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] We might as well be a dictatorship if that is the case.[/QUOTE] Yea but sometimes equality and what is right matters a little more then what most people think. If most people thought slavery was right again I would still think it shouldn't.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28156250]Keeping it infringes on the rights of a minority Repealing it infringes on the rights of nobody whatever can we do[/QUOTE] I know it infringes on no one if you repeal it, but in his logic it infringes the rights of the voters. Apparently.

[QUOTE=I Broke The Sun!;28156335]I know it infringes on no one if you repeal it, but in his logic it infringes the rights of the voters. Apparently.[/QUOTE] The voters don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others, nor have they ever had that right

[QUOTE=>VLN<;28156030]But see here, it was the people's vote. They voted to block gay marriage. It is their decision. If judges can then go and say what the [i]majority of the people[/i] voted for is invalid, that is a direct infringement on our rights. The people's decision may not be right, but it isn't the court's duty to repeal what the people have voted for. [editline]19th February 2011[/editline] We might as well be a dictatorship if that is the case.[/QUOTE] You don't vote on rights.

it's nice that y'all're responding eloquently with thought out counters to his post but he's probably one of those one-shot posters who only posts in each thread once, posting his lame opinion in a thread and then moving on to the next, hardly above a fast-threader, the only difference being even less of a commitment to responding to anything other than thread titles

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;28156814]it's nice that y'all're responding eloquently with thought out counters to his post but he's probably one of those one-shot posters who only posts in each thread once, posting his lame opinion in a thread and then moving on to the next, hardly above a fast-threader, the only difference being even less of a commitment to responding to anything other than thread titles[/QUOTE] Well it's not like we could be doing anything more useful Sure I could be looking at apartments for rent or perhaps finding better employment but what was the point I was trying to make again?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;28156930]Well it's not like we could be doing anything more useful Sure I could be looking at apartments for rent or perhaps finding better employment but what was the point I was trying to make again?[/QUOTE] fuck mob rule?

I can't believe so many people are so stuck on a book that's thousands of years old and regard it as the absolute truth. And then all their evidence points back to this book and yet they say it is completely factual, solid evidence. And look what it's doing. It is causing so many fucking problems in this world. People are killing others just because they disagree with the book. It completely baffles my mind.

[QUOTE=thisispain;28156942]fuck mob rule?[/QUOTE] Can't we just talk about bjork instead Prop 8 is a retarded thing but bjork is discussable

I would like to listen to bjork but I don't know where to start.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;28157140]I would like to listen to bjork but I don't know where to start.[/QUOTE] I know nothing about her but she has thisispain's approval and that's enough for me.