California Supreme Court Continues to Defy Citizens

6 06 2008

After a 3 week sabbatical for vacation, I am picking up blogging again on the same topic I ended with: The California Supreme Court and its defiance of the citizens of that state.

First, on June 2, the California Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, certified the California Marriage Protection Act for the November 2008 ballot. Of utmost importance, the Amendment to the California Constitution states: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This means the Court MUST stay its May 15 decision. The people will now decide, as it should be.

Many same-sex marriage proponents were claiming majority opinions have changed in the state of California in the last two years since San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, saw his homosexual marriage certificates made illegal. However, A recent poll conducted on May 30, 2008 by ccAdvertising shows that 56% of California residents support marriage as one man and one woman. A poll a few weeks ago by the Los Angeles Times similarly revealed that 54% of those polled supported the Amendment and only 35% opposed it. So much for that theory.

Then, two days later on June 4, the California Supreme Court denied the Petition for Stay (pdf), filed by Liberty Counsel. The May 15 decision will become law on June 16, 2008.

Gay couples in California rushed to set wedding dates Wednesday after the California Supreme Court’s unusually quick rejection of challenges to its historic decision permitting same-sex couples to wed.

By rejecting petitions asking for reconsideration of the May 15 ruling, the court’s 4-3 vote removed the final obstacle to same-sex marriages starting on June 17. The court also refused to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November election, when voters will decide whether to reinstate a ban on same-sex nuptials.

The court’s decision to reject the appeals was unusually speedy. Petitions for rehearing, even those that are all but certain to be turned down, usually delay enforcement of rulings for 30 to 60 days.

This is nothing short of radical judicial activism at best, communism at worst. A handful of judges have just defied the will of the citizens of their state, trampled on their own laws, and violated the rights of millions of voters. Truthfully, this should not be surprising. After all, this decision was a gift from the court, according to the ACLU, and the court could not take it back once they gave it. That would be like taking a new toy from a child. Imagine the whining we would have to deal with.

Liberty Counsel is considering filing an appeal, but were unsuccessful in a previous appeal. If the decision becomes law, then it will be up to the voters. If the marriage amendment passes in November, it will nullify any marriage licenses [illegally] granted between June 16 and November 4.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

25 responses

6 06 2008
croixian1

Yes, well, 80% of the American population wholeheartedly supported slavery 200 years ago too. The people are not always right and Lincoln did something about it.

As little as 40 years ago it was quite acceptable by the majority of this country that denying equal rights for women and blacks was quite okay. Wrong again.

The people are NOT always right, majority or not,

6 06 2008
Truth and Reason

Why is that when a poll supports liberal views, you certainly don’t hesitate to rely on it? Why is that I cannot cite a poll supporting my opinion without absurd comparisons? Whether the people are right or not is not the point here. The point is that the judges are trying to prevent from having a voice, when the law clearly states they can. If you think they are wrong, get more voters to turn out to vote that way. That’s how America works. We don’t need a handful of people deciding what’s right and wrong. We follow the law.

6 06 2008
vitaminbook

On what basis did the judges involved make the ruling in the first place?

6 06 2008
Truth and Reason

Obviously, it was not on any basis. Judges are supposed to interpret law, not create new laws, which is what they have done here. They have created new laws where none previously existed. It was for the advancement of their agenda and nothing less.

6 06 2008
Ashley

“violated the rights of millions of voters”

What a misguided way to describe what is being done to YOU, by MY being denied the right to marry.

6 06 2008
vitaminbook

What reason did they actually give, though? (I’m assuming they didn’t say anything along the lines of what you just said).

I’m sorry for being a pain, but I’m honestly not used to looking up political news. If you have a handy link to a news article with what I’m looking for, that would be great too.

6 06 2008
Truth and Reason

It doesn’t matter what reason they gave. If you want to read the full opinion, click here. There is a link to the full pdf version of the decision in that post. The fact is these judges created new laws where none previously existed. That is not their job – it is the lawmakers’ job to do that.

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

==MY being denied the right to marry.==

“Marriage” is not a Right.

Nobody denies you marriage. Nobody has access to marriage more than you do, nor less than you do, for everybody may marry a member of the opposite sex. Nobody may marry a member of the same sex. Everybody is treated the same. And don’t spit out the same garbage that you can’t marry somebody you love. Neither can I. I can’t marry some body who is already married even though I may love them. I can’t marry somebody who doesn’t wanna marry me. Things are tuff all over. It’s about time you get used to it.

In any case, if Massachusetts allows so-called “same-sex ‘marriage,'” go there and knock yourself out.

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

TR, of course, is absolutely correct on the job of the Judiciary.

The Judiciary in Nazi Germany was a puppet of the Führer, and those claiming to be homosexual have found some dummy judges virtually to sit on their laps and mouth the Homosexual Militia’s agenda in their rulings.

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

==…Judges are supposed to interpret law, not create new laws…==

And, so, legislatures aren’t required to adhere to a supreme court ruling. Only the Legislative may make law and create Rights within the states’ constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

The courts say that they think that something is so, and the Legislative decides the limits of the “so” that is something.

The Court may say that something is a Right, but it is the Legislative that decides the breadth of that Right, and, so, the court ruling can be ignored. So, the People of the State of Kahleeforneea, in this case, are allowed to decide the breadth of the “Right” the court found where it is not.

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

==80% of the American population wholeheartedly supported slavery 200 years ago too.==

Can’t compare slavery with alleged homosexuality. Slavery was not a choice. The option of the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation is.

== The people are not always right…==

Irrelevant. Nobody chose to be a slave. Slavery was an immoral act ON people, though I’m not going to second-guess those who had their reasons. I’m not going to apply what we know today and apply it to what they did then cuz they didn’t know what we know about the physical treatment of other human creatures. They thought what they thought and did acocrding to what they had before them in the circumstances of the time.

Those who claim to be homosexual chose to go homosexual. They are not slaves to anything but their choice, and their choice is not ours.

==The people are NOT always right, majority or not.==

However, the majority, motivated by democratic principle, does the best it can with what it has before it. That’s the system. You don’t have to like it, but the minority, in a country as this, doesn’t get to be a tryanny, doesn’t get to impose its agenda on the majority. You can present your views, and, if people don’t like them, they are free to reject them, and, if there are enough of us, that’s the way it is. Just as you are free to reject what we think.

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

Check the Kahleeforneea Supreme Court official portrait and see whether these two http://thumbsnap.com/v/8RdiRNlA.jpg are in there somewheres.

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

Check the official portrait of the Kahleeforneea Supreme Court and see whether these to guys http://thumbsnap.com/v/8RdiRNlA.jpg are in there somewheres.

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

to guys >>>> two guys

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

Libzi/Libtard judge-shopping: http://thumbsnap.com/v/BFzZJitx.jpg

7 06 2008
mr2incredible

Inside lookit the Kahleeforneea Supreme Court during those recent deliberations: http://thumbsnap.com/v/f0ToZy38.jpg

After all, that justice had to get into the mood.

7 06 2008
mrincredible

==What a misguided way to describe what is being done to YOU…==

Those who claim to be homosexual, their activists and supporters MUST have this view of us cuz it is an attempt to justify their position. They have to demonize us in order to feel good, to get the best “high” on their agenda.

7 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

^^The people are NOT always right…^^

So, to YOU, the People are NEVER right.

See, this is the trouble with you people; since it’s sometimes true, that, to you people, must mean that it’s always true. Thus, you try to put doubt on ALL vote of the majority with which you disagree. So, you people shop for one judge who will substitute his judgment for the judgment of the People. The judge is NOT over the People. It’s the other way around.

7 06 2008
Paula Abdrool

How are men who say they are homosexual being treated differently than men who are heterosexual? Are both not allowed to marry women???

How are women who say that they are homosexual treated differently than women who are heterosexual? Are both not allowed to marry men???

Are not both men who say they are homosexual and those who are heterosexual prohibited from marrying a member of the same sex???

Are not both women who say they are homosexual and those who are heterosexual prohibited from marrying a member of the same sex???

This is bottom line equal protection.

7 06 2008
Paula Abdrool

So, anyways…

So, if people are created homosexual, WHEN are they created homosexual??
Where did homosexuality come from? When were those who claim to be homosexual created homosexual?

These are critical questions cuz Jefferson said that the Right to life comes at the very moment of creation, though the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice crowd disagrees with that; they say that it comes with birth, though, clearly, there has been something created before that.

So, we have to know when this Right to life started so that we can apply Jefferson’s “Right to life” to all those who should have it and give them the things to which they deserve as having the Right to life.

Which is it: Created, or birthed, homosexual? If birthed, what was the one who claims to be homosexual before being born? Heterosexual? Gee, imagine that.

8 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

We have to remember that these Republicans on the Kahleeforneea Supreme Court are, after all, in Kahleeforneea, and they have to be influenced by all the trash that is Kahleeforneea, the only state in the nation that can be considered another planet.

Translation: “Everybody knows that we wanna do whatever filth crosses our minds out here, and the rest of the country looks to us to come up with filth so they can feel justified in rolling around in filth, too.”

I suppose that, if they believe that they are descendants of the same creature, they could make the case that acting like a pig, sloppin’ around in slime and muck, is natural, not a choice. They would say, “Four legs good, two legs bad.” http://search.live.com/video/results.aspx?q=%22Animal+Farm%22+%22Orwell%22+%22four+legs%22&docid=1606194759377&FORM=VIVP

So…

If homosexuals are created, when are they created?

This is relevant cuz, if they are homosexual at the single cell stage cuz they were created homosexual, then, as Jefferson said, the Right to life kicks in at that stage, and, if the Right to life kicks in at that stage, then what’s all this about the Right to abortion if the unborn enjoy the Right to life???

Looks like those who claim to be homosexual are not on the same page as pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice.

At what point, at what stage of development, then, can we apply the Right to life Jefferson says we all have at our creation? I’ll bet that the pro-choice=pro-abortin=wrong-choice people wanna know this, too.

I’ll bet the those who claim to be homosexual, their activists and their supporters, and the pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choice crowd are chokin’ on this.

8 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

C’MON! Where’s all this intelligence and reasoning and logic and the scientific and empiricism Libs always braggin’ about bein’ soooooo powerful?

8 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

==80% of the American population wholeheartedly supported slavery 200 years ago too. ==

So, if a majority support you people, they can be wrong, too??? Ohhhh, yeah, now I get it.

8 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

Those who claim to be homosexual say that we are not showing “love” and “compassion” to those who say they are homosexual.

What, then, does it look like to show “love” and “compassion” to those who say they are homosexual?

What’s the tip-off, the evidence of biblical “love” and biblical “compassion” on those who claim to be homosexual??

What are we not doing that we should be doing, if we biblically “love” and have biblical “compassion” on those who say they are homosexual?

13 06 2008
Mr. Incredible

Where is the discrimination in a law, or amendment, that requires “marriage’ to be between a man and a woman? Do these laws, or amendments, say that only a heterosexual man must marry a heterosexual woman? No, they don’t. A man, claiming to be homosexual, may marry a woman who says she’s homosexual. Now, they say they wouldn’t want to do so, but that is not a problem for government to figure out. Government cannot put an undue burden on choice, thank you Roe.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: