Comments on: Gay Marriage Ban Ballot Backlash

CBS Evening News: Californians Who Opposed Proposition 8 Are Outraged Over Its Passage

[VegasResident]

Shoot I think we will be astounded if it gets there in the next 10 years.

Posted by vegasresiden
***
I do not see a problem with it reaching the high court in ten years. Obama would not still be President then, but his appointees would likely still be on the court.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

valid point.

[VegasResident]

All I''''m getting at is that the courts need to think before they act, and they need to consider and take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. In this case, they need to provide a quick and easy way for those who wish to transition their same-*** marriage to a domestic partnerships. That would greatly reduce a lot of the concern and tension that exists right now with so much about these marriages still being in limbo. And they need to see very clearly that the people of this state will not stand for their vote being overturned.

Posted by klgrube1 at 05:03 PM : Nov 10, 2008

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

so does this mean then that the courts should always be beholden to the vote of the people regardless of the constitutionality?

Actually I do not think at this time anything the court is doing is addressing those weddings that took place legally. They will be addressing the constitutional conflict argument that has been filed against the entire Prop 8.

[voidmaster-2009]

Shoot I think we will be astounded if it gets there in the next 10 years.

Posted by vegasresiden
***
I do not see a problem with it reaching the high court in ten years. Obama would not still be President then, but his appointees would likely still be on the court.

[voidmaster-2009]

...that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.'''' "

Posted by vegasresiden
***
Which seems to be exactly what they have done with prop-8.

[VegasResident]

Then the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it and it will go back to the lower court.

Posted by vegasresiden
***
Maybe. Then again, if the case does not reach the SC until Obama gets a chance to appoint a couple of judges...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shoot I think we will be astounded if it gets there in the next 10 years.

[klgrube1]

And it the California Appeals Court that allowed this trial to be moved to a predominiately white neighborhood of Ventura, knowing that the trial would likely not be heard before the most unbiased of juries.

All I''m getting at is that the courts need to think before they act, and they need to consider and take responsibility for the consequences of their decisions. In this case, they need to provide a quick and easy way for those who wish to transition their same-*** marriage to a domestic partnerships. That would greatly reduce a lot of the concern and tension that exists right now with so much about these marriages still being in limbo. And they need to see very clearly that the people of this state will not stand for their vote being overturned.

[VegasResident]

In the words of the CA Supreme Court:

"we conclude that, under this state''s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are ''so integral to an individual''s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.'' "

[voidmaster-2009]

read the book of Revelations. Isaiah was a prophet. The only time there is going to be a new Heaven and Earth is after the battle of Armageddon after the dragon is thrown into the bottomless pit. In Rev. you will read about the New Heaven and Earth and new Jerusalem. that''''s the only time it happens. Isaiah was prophesying that future event in time.

Posted by endtimes72
***
Yes! And in that prophesy he speaks of women bearing children -- in the new heavens and new earth.

[voidmaster-2009]

Then the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it and it will go back to the lower court.

Posted by vegasresiden
***
Maybe. Then again, if the case does not reach the SC until Obama gets a chance to appoint a couple of judges...

[endtimes72]

Please look it up, endtimes. Isaiah 65:17-23.

Posted by VoidMaster

read the book of Revelations. Isaiah was a prophet. The only time there is going to be a new Heaven and Earth is after the battle of Armageddon after the dragon is thrown into the bottomless pit. In Rev. you will read about the New Heaven and Earth and new Jerusalem. that''s the only time it happens. Isaiah was prophesying that future event in time.

[VegasResident]

Well, it really should happen at the federal level.

Posted by VoidMaster at 04:56 PM : Nov 10, 2008
+ report abuse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then the Supreme Court will refuse to hear it and it will go back to the lower court.

[VegasResident]

The difference between Prop 22 and Prop 8, in case anyone missed it, was that Prop 22 only revised certain statutes in the California Family Code. It wasn''''t a Constitutional Amendment. The court thought it was okay to declare these individual statutes unconstitutional, but they cannot - will not - repeal part of what is now the Caifornia State Constitution by overturning the vote of the people. I hope that clears that up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Partially correct, however if a conflict exists, the legislature will have to change the core portion of the CA Constitution that is causing the conflict.

[voidmaster-2009]

The difference between Prop 22 and Prop 8, in case anyone missed it, was that Prop 22 only revised certain statutes in the California Family Code. It wasn''''t a Constitutional Amendment. The court thought it was okay to declare these individual statutes unconstitutional, but they cannot - will not - repeal part of what is now the Caifornia State Constitution by overturning the vote of the people. I hope that clears that up.

Posted by klgrube1
***
Well, it really should happen at the federal level.

[VegasResident]

here are many things to consider with that proposal. I would consider them challenges rather than problems. For one, based on your argument, you are either penalized or benefit because you are considered married. Why not change the tax laws? I admit you also have to consider chld welfare and custody issues too, but it''''''''s not out of the realm of possibilities?

It''''''''s not a perfect concept; probably never will be. But it makes a lot more sense than what we have now.

Posted by cntrymuzksux at 04:51 PM : Nov 10, 2008
+ report abuse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I agree with your assessment. Eliminate all the governmental benefits, social security rights, inheritance rights, etc and just make all those available to anyone. Everyone can choose anyone for all these things.

Then let the Churches fall where they may and do religious marriages for just the sack of meeting the requirements of God as they see fit..

[voidmaster-2009]

Please look it up, endtimes. Isaiah 65:17-23.

[VegasResident]

There are many things to consider with that proposal. I would consider them challenges rather than problems. For one, based on your argument, you are either penalized or benefit because you are considered married. Why not change the tax laws? I admit you also have to consider chld welfare and custody issues too, but it''''s not out of the realm of possibilities?

It''''s not a perfect concept; probably never will be. But it makes a lot more sense than what we have now.

Posted by cntrymuzksux at 04:51 PM : Nov 10, 2008
+ report abuse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with your assessment. Eliminate all the governmental benefits, social security rights, inheritance rights, etc and just make all those available to anyone. Then let the Churches fall where they may.

[klgrube1]

The difference between Prop 22 and Prop 8, in case anyone missed it, was that Prop 22 only revised certain statutes in the California Family Code. It wasn''t a Constitutional Amendment. The court thought it was okay to declare these individual statutes unconstitutional, but they cannot - will not - repeal part of what is now the Caifornia State Constitution by overturning the vote of the people. I hope that clears that up.

[VegasResident]

But if these judges think it should be reversed, one hopes each one of them remembers what happend in LA in 1992. Does the name Rodney King ring a bell? Hey, that court thought they were right too!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
Ehh, wrong answer, it was a jury OF THE PEOPLE

The jury consisted of Ventura County residents %u2014 ten whites, one Latino and one Asian. The prosecutor, Terry White, was African-American. The jury acquitted three of the officers, but could not agree about one of the charges for Powell. On April 29, 1992, only Powell was convicted.[6]

[voidmaster-2009]

that''''s a little misleading dont''''cha think. the new Heaven and New Earth. Earth is where the Millennial reign will take place for 1000 years. Children will be born on earth not in heaven. again no flesh is allowed in Heaven. God himself and Jesus will be among us on earth during the 1000 year reign. heaven is also referred to as the sky given what text in was used in.

Posted by endtimes72
***
dont''''cha think??? What are you Sara Palin?

No, the passage I am talking about is not set in the Millennium. The passage start out with, ''Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth...''

[VegasResident]

But if these judges think it should be reversed, one hopes each one of them remembers what happend in LA in 1992. Does the name Rodney King ring a bell? Hey, that court thought they were right too!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ehh, wrong answer, it was a jury OF THE PEOPLE