🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 2, 12:40 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> > On Nov 1, 5:42 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> >> kujebak <kuje...@eudoramail.com> writes:
> >> > I hope you realize that Proposition 8 is as much a public
> >> > backlash against the activist judiciary, as it is about same-
> >> > sex marriage. I personally don't care whether gay couples
> >> > get to keep their marriage certificates or not, but I'm vo-
> >> > ting for the proposition just to straighten out the courts ;-)
>
> >> Do you realize that what you think is an "activist judiciary"
> >> on the California Supreme Court contains only one justice who
> >> was appointed by a Democrat that all the others were appointed
> >> by conservative Republican governors?
>
> >> Do you also realize that Proposition 8 was submitted to the state
> >> Sept--Oct 2007, the point where they started to gather signatures?
> >> Proposition Eight is not on the ballot because of the decision to
> >> allow same-sex marriages - that decision had yet to be made when
> >> Proposition Eight was written.
>
> > And I hope you realize that none of this really invalidates
> > my point. If it hadn't been for the court overruling Proposi-
> > tion 22, I probably wouldn't care about the gay marriage
> > issue any more than I care about social services and public
> > education for illegal immigrants. To me the only issue that
> > matters in either case are the activist courts, and their con-
> > tepmt for the law.
>
> ROTFLMAO! The California Supreme Court is simply not an "activist
> court".  In fact, it is rather conservative.  Its ruling regarding
> Proposition 22 was solidly based on what is in the California State
> Constitution, which the court's members did not write.

Laugh all you want, but the In re Marriage Cases decision was far
from clear and unanimous. One's opinion of  the judges upholding
the Prop. 22  litigation would certainly depend on which side of the
gay marriage issue one finds himself on.

>
> Proposition 22 was overruled for a number of reasons. Only a fool
> would vote for Proposition 8, which takes the wording of Proposition
> 22 tries to transfer it to the state constitution in a way that will
> tie up the courts for years in litigation (for example, what happens
> to existing marriages and how do you compensate people if you take
> their marriages away, the value of which may be considerably higher
> than the processing fees for getting a license).

How much are Warren Jeffs' marriages worth? Marriage certificates
issued in violation of the state law (Section 300, California Family
Code) aren't even worth the paper they're written on. Definition of
marriage is the prerogative of individual states. Do you seriously
believe the U.S. Supreme Court would even consider this issue?
If the Prop. 8 does pass there is no doubt the gay lobby will take
its cause to the federal courts. Regarding refunds for the marriage
license fees? Mayor Gavin Newsom and the City of San Francisco
should have more than enougn resources to cover those ;-)

- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -