RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« 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