RECENT  POSTS:  » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win. » By the time you read this headline, we'll be ten more seconds beyond stagnant anti-gay 'culture wars' » Video: America cannot wait—to purchase American Family Association radio equipment? Huh?! » Huckabee 2016: 'cause church and state aint gonna marry themselves » EEOC does wonky, under-radar thing that could lay groundwork for definitive nondiscrimination protections » Maggie Gallagher, now that you've lost on marriage, might you lose these deceptive ways as well? » Crowdfunding discriminatory business owners: Perfect statement on anti-gay movement's current affairs » The religious anti-gay crowd: They never understood the marriage fight; now they don't understand their loss  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/16/2008

CA: Court rejects pro-gay proposition, keeps irrational one

by Jeremy Hooper

 Good As You Images 200806271555-1Well folks, it looks like we're going to have to defeat California's Proposition 8 at the polls. The Supreme Court today rejected the attempts to have the biased, marriage-denying initiative removed from the November ballot:

Supreme Court rejects bid to remove gay marriage ban measure from November ballot [AP via Contra Costa Times]

There is no higher court to which this can matter really be appealed or whatever. However, considering the noxious waste product-like state of the shitty proposition, it's still unclear as to whether we on the pro-gay side can instead hire a sewage worker to dispose of it.

**Note: This is not to say that the amendment, if ratified, can't be challenged in court. It can and most certainly will! This development is concerning the measure's placement on the ballot, not necessarily its merits.

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Jeremy, my California lawyer contacts insist that the court is only declining to hear the case NOW, before the vote. This appears to be their standard approach in this situation. This is not being reported well by the MSM.

If the initiative passes, then the court can -- and most likely will -- agree to hear the same challenge afterward. They simply prefer to wait to review the amendment itself rather than the ballot proposal.

But of course, we all hope it won't come to that.

Cheers and beers...

Posted by: KipEsquire | Jul 16, 2008 6:10:44 PM

Hmm...but the attempt in question was the one to have the measure considered a "revision" rather than an "amendment." That's been shot down, yes?

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 16, 2008 6:26:26 PM

Not necessarily. But the "based on subsequently inaccurate information" prong is the far more robust argument anyway (mainly because it's, um, true).

:-)

Posted by: KipEsquire | Jul 16, 2008 8:04:54 PM

Right. Well please keep us abreast of anything you learn.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 16, 2008 8:19:16 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails