California Supreme Court tackles gay marriage case again

The fate of the legal battle over California's ban on gay marriage no longer turns on the constitutional rights of same-sex couples to wed -- at least for now.

[Checkpoint3]

What we have here is a case of politically appointed justices and govt. officials against the People of California who expressed their will when they voted to pass Proposition 8 that amends the state constitution by defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Our SC justices can't seem to figure out what to about the people's will, espcially since it's one of their own colleagues who happens to be an unannounced gay who declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, thus serving his own personal as well as that of the LGBT community.

So this latest round of circus performance will probably be charged with more political manipulations to obtain the desired results, but the voters are not asleep. There is now a growing movement to de-politicize the justice by making all these justices run for election by the very people they are sworn to serve and obey.

[Just me -]

Checkpoint3 wrote:

What we have here is a case of politically appointed justices and govt. officials against the People of California who expressed their will when they voted to pass Proposition 8 that amends the state constitution by defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Our SC justices can't seem to figure out what to about the people's will, espcially since it's one of their own colleagues who happens to be an unannounced gay who declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, thus serving his own personal as well as that of the LGBT community.
So this latest round of circus performance will probably be charged with more political manipulations to obtain the desired results, but the voters are not asleep. There is now a growing movement to de-politicize the justice by making all these justices run for election by the very people they are sworn to serve and obey.

Since when should people have the right to vote who others can and cannot marry? Should I have that right when it concerns you? Should I be able to vote on who can and cannot get a divorce?

[Checkpoint3]

You are absolutely clueless when it comes to who, why, when and where the existing laws of man were created and enforced. If you don't like the existing laws go and try to live in a Muslim so you will learn just how much right you have to marry another fag and engage in perverted sex. YUKKY!

[Fred ABQ]

I think they issue of standing is insurmountable. I think the CSC will rule that they do NOT have standing, and thus Marriage Equality will once again be the law of the land in Cali.

[Just me -]

Checkpoint3 wrote:

You are absolutely clueless when it comes to who, why, when and where the existing laws of man were created and enforced. If you don't like the existing laws go and try to live in a Muslim so you will learn just how much right you have to marry another fag and engage in perverted sex. YUKKY!

I don't think about what kind of sex other people have in their own homes so why do you?

Are you telling me that if I find a certain sex act yukky I should be able to vote to keep others from participating in such an act?

Has anyone ever told you that you sound like a whining 10 year old?

[Just me -]

Fred ABQ wrote:

I think they issue of standing is insurmountable. I think the CSC will rule that they do NOT have standing, and thus Marriage Equality will once again be the law of the land in Cali.

Wouldn't that be nice?

[Fred ABQ]

Just me - wrote:

<quoted text>
Wouldn't that be nice?

Scratch my last post.

The issue of standing that the CSC is considering now, is being done at the request of the federal appeals court. The CSC is expected to rule on the question of standing in late December.

But no matter what the ruling on that issue, that is merely an advisory opinion that the federal appeals court may consider. The federal appeals court is under no legal, nor constitutional, obligation to give the that decision any weight at all. But they probably will.

A decision by the federal appeals court will probably come in the second quarter of 2012.

My guess is that it will be favorable to us, and equal marriage rights will once again be the law in Cali. But I don't think that will happen until about late June, 2012.

[TT4Y]

Checkpoint3 wrote:

What we have here is a case of politically appointed justices and govt. officials against the People of California who expressed their will when they voted to pass Proposition 8 that amends the state constitution by defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Our SC justices can't seem to figure out what to about the people's will, espcially since it's one of their own colleagues who happens to be an unannounced gay who declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, thus serving his own personal as well as that of the LGBT community.
So this latest round of circus performance will probably be charged with more political manipulations to obtain the desired results, but the voters are not asleep. There is now a growing movement to de-politicize the justice by making all these justices run for election by the very people they are sworn to serve and obey.

From the latest reports it seems that the voters have standing to sue which means that the liberals and their queers could very well lose.
The officers sworn to up-hold California law refused to do the will of the people under California law, as the people of California demanded at the ballot-box under their State laws.
The queer judge Vaughn Walker will be over-ruled, especially since he had no jurisdiction nor business inserting his opinion in this case in the first place.
The voters of California have spoken at the polls and ultimately, their voice will be heard.
The voters, democracy, freedom of speech, the Constitution is what queers despise most of all.
Queers want to impose not only "tolerance", but acceptance and worship of their sick deviant and chosen lifestyle choices on the rest of the populace, especially upon the children of taxpayers in the government schools.

[Fred ABQ]

TT4Y wrote:

<quoted text>From the latest reports it seems that the voters have standing to sue which means that the liberals and their queers could very well lose.
The officers sworn to up-hold California law refused to do the will of the people under California law, as the people of California demanded at the ballot-box under their State laws.
The queer judge Vaughn Walker will be over-ruled, especially since he had no jurisdiction nor business inserting his opinion in this case in the first place.
The voters of California have spoken at the polls and ultimately, their voice will be heard.
The voters, democracy, freedom of speech, the Constitution is what queers despise most of all.
Queers want to impose not only "tolerance", but acceptance and worship of their sick deviant and chosen lifestyle choices on the rest of the populace, especially upon the children of taxpayers in the government schools.

Yeah. So ? We already know that. What's your point ??!!

[TT4Y]

Fred ABQ wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah. So ? We already know that. What's your point ??!!

So you agree that adult homosexuals want nothing more than to demonstrate and teach homosexuality to children by any means necessary.
As if normal people didn't know that.

[TT4Y]

No American citizen has tolerate, let alone accept queers or their behavior.
Once the government collapses because of the queers and liberals and communists that run it, then they can be punished and hunted for token amounts.
Their ears can be chopped-off or provide some other proof the dirty-communist-enemy is dead as a doornail.
There will be no payment without incontrovertible proof of the death of a communist-leftist-enemy.
Show ears or tails to try to make a claim.
Chopping off a whole head is somewhat more persuasive.

[Just me -]

TT4Y wrote:

<quoted text>So you agree that adult homosexuals want nothing more than to demonstrate and teach homosexuality to children by any means necessary.
As if normal people didn't know that.

How exactly do you "teach homosexuality"? Either someone is gay or they're not. I think the idea is to teach acceptance so that gay children are not bullied and to teach gay history so that everyone can see that people who are gay are valuable members of society who should not be ashamed of who they are.