RECENT  POSTS:  » What most people aren't getting about the fake non-troversies of the anti-gay right » 'Weekly Standard' asst. editor equates Tim Cook with man who pits God against him » Michigan pastors make unfortunate lifestyle choice; say they'll go to jail rather than not discriminate » PFOX's Quinlan says SBC leader's opposition to 'reparative therapy' is cruel » That Idaho wedding venue posts new 'rules and regulations'; will still perform non-Christian weddings » Another deceptive thing about NOM's duplicitous anti-Hagan ad » NOM trying to shape Arkansas politics without even learning state's abbreviation » Video: Focus on the Family staffer who calls homosexuality 'particularly evil lie of Satan' hangs out in Chicago's Boystown » Video: Another new NOM ad targets Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR); uses James O'Keefe video as source » What the heck is 'NOM Victory Fund'?  

« 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