- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Case dismissed.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.
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. :rofl
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!
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couples would then regain the right to marry, which they won in a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that the voters repealed less than six months later.
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. :rofl
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 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.
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?
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?
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. :rofl
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!
Doesn't matter.
The amendment was duly adopted according to the terms of the constitution, and thus is now duly a part of the constitution.
To be honest, while I'm against Prop. 8 and I think it's a violation of the 14th Amendement of the US Constitution, I do think the state should at least pretend to defend it even if their heart's not in it.
Doesn't matter.
The amendment was duly adopted according to the terms of the constitution, and thus is now duly a part of the constitution.
When you sign a contract, if someone amends that contract... it's void.
And the Current CA Constitution has been ruled unconstitutional -- They're American's first.
Here is my honest question for our legal people: If Arnold and the DA think that the Amendment is counter to the US constitution, would they still be expected to defend it legally? I mean, I can see both sides here. Yes, public officials should protect the law, but if they believe, with some potential legal justification, that the law is, well, illegal, would they then be justified in not defending it?
When you sign a contract, if someone amends that contract... it's void.
And the Current CA Constitution has been ruled unconstitutional -- They're American's first.
"When I joined the military and swore to defend the country as directed, we were at peace. Now the Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor and they're telling me I have to go fight at war. We weren't at war when I signed my contract, so that means I get to go home, right?"
You could make the argument, but the counter-argument is that until the legal avenues have been exhausted, the (federal) constitutionality is still very much an open question. One district court isn't enough.
But it's certainly a stronger argument than "they don't have to defend it because it wasn't in the constitution when they took their oaths."
I think that part about going to war is already in the contract even during peace time.
Let me ask another, and the part that really makes no sense to me out of this:
What is the advantage to the prop 8 backers to have some one who disagrees with them on their team so to speak for the trial? It seems to my point of view as a legal outsider, that it would not be in their interest to force help from people who don't want to help if you follow what I am saying. Since it makes no sense from that standpoint, I would assume that there has to be some benefit from a legal standpoint to force them to defend it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?