Page 1 of 35 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 347

Thread: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

  1. #1
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,755

    Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    The outlook for the legal defense of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, grew cloudier Thursday as a state appellate court refused to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a federal judge's ruling overturning the measure.
    Case dismissed.

    This is big. Governor Schwarzeneggar does not have to appeal the overturning of Proposition 8, and he won't. This means that, pretty soon, gay marriage in California is going to be pretty much a done deal.

    I remember a few years ago, when Republicans pushed other candidates aside to make Arnold the candidate, and eventually the Governor. Screw the issues, the "R" after the name was everything. To those Republicans, I say "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it". As for Arnold? In some ways, he turned out to be a decent Republican, after all. He definitely turned out to be one that ended up upholding Constitutional principles for ALL people in his state, not just some.

    Article is here.
    Last edited by danarhea; 09-04-10 at 04:54 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #2
    Guru
    Councilman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riverside, County, CA.
    Last Seen
    11-04-11 @ 10:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,454
    Blog Entries
    10

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    It is no surprise Jerry Brown won't take any action because after all, well you know. Enough said know what L mean nudge nudge. say no more, say no more.

    The article didn't say but was that the 9th Circus Court of Shlameels? What do you expect?

    On a serious note if the people don't like the way the Radical Liberals who make up less than 25% of the population get away with all the nonsense they need to understand that backing down when confronted by their name calling, lying. smear tactics, and all sorts of threats and intimidation, mixed with ample amounts threats of violence we only have to stand together and never never back down.

    It's the only way to put an end to the Godlessness and lack of morals and integrity we face almost every day.

    We can start by voting the Bums on both sides of the isle out in Nov.

    Those who stand for nothing fall for anything!

  3. #3
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,755

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    It is no surprise Jerry Brown won't take any action because after all, well you know. Enough said know what L mean nudge nudge. say no more, say no more.

    The article didn't say but was that the 9th Circus Court of Shlameels? What do you expect?

    On a serious note if the people don't like the way the Radical Liberals who make up less than 25% of the population get away with all the nonsense they need to understand that backing down when confronted by their name calling, lying. smear tactics, and all sorts of threats and intimidation, mixed with ample amounts threats of violence we only have to stand together and never never back down.

    It's the only way to put an end to the Godlessness and lack of morals and integrity we face almost every day.

    We can start by voting the Bums on both sides of the isle out in Nov.

    Those who stand for nothing fall for anything!
    I completely disagree with you on just about everything you said, except for that last sentence. We can drink a beer to that.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    If Prop. 8's supporters are barred from defending it, the appeals court could uphold Walker's ruling on procedural grounds without deciding whether the initiative was constitutional. Same-sex couples would then regain the right to marry, which they won in a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that the voters repealed less than six months later.
    I hope that gays are able to get married ASAP -- but I would've like to have seen this one go all the way. A ruling from SCOTUS could shut down all anti-gay marriage and adoption laws.

  5. #5
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    It is no surprise Jerry Brown won't take any action because after all, well you know. Enough said know what L mean nudge nudge. say no more, say no more.

    The article didn't say but was that the 9th Circus Court of Shlameels? What do you expect?

    On a serious note if the people don't like the way the Radical Liberals who make up less than 25% of the population get away with all the nonsense they need to understand that backing down when confronted by their name calling, lying. smear tactics, and all sorts of threats and intimidation, mixed with ample amounts threats of violence we only have to stand together and never never back down.

    It's the only way to put an end to the Godlessness and lack of morals and integrity we face almost every day.

    We can start by voting the Bums on both sides of the isle out in Nov.

    Those who stand for nothing fall for anything!
    So am I to translate this rant as "God said no homos so we have to fight this?"
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Fact of the matter is that Proposition 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment, it wasn't going to pass the Supreme Court, and the state of California can't afford the luxury of wasting time on such petty issues right now.

    The state is facing bankruptcy thanks to the goonions that have controlled the state for decades, and the vultures are coming home to roost.

  7. #7
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    I hope that gays are able to get married ASAP -- but I would've like to have seen this one go all the way. A ruling from SCOTUS could shut down all anti-gay marriage and adoption laws.
    Ya same here. While I'm happy for California, I'm a bit disappointed that we didn't get to see the Supreme Court strike down gay marriage bans nationwide, which they almost certainly would have (with a couple conservatives joining the liberals). I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for that to happen.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #8
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,825

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Ya same here. While I'm happy for California, I'm a bit disappointed that we didn't get to see the Supreme Court strike down gay marriage bans nationwide, which they almost certainly would have (with a couple conservatives joining the liberals). I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for that to happen.
    The article says the federal appeals court will hear the case in December.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #9
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,570

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Considering the measure is a duly-adopted provision of the California constitution, I'd say it's not an unreasonable argument that they're required to defend it by their oaths of office:

    "I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. "
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Considering the measure is a duly-adopted provision of the California constitution, I'd say it's not an unreasonable argument that they're required to defend it by their oaths of office:

    "I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. "
    The California Constitution hadn't been amended when they swore to defend it.

    They could say - "I didn't swear to defend that homophobic, misguided thing..."

    Can you say Loophole?

Page 1 of 35 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •