What the hell just happened?

[ColbertWatcher]

I'm so angry at the ruling today, that I can't think right now.

Can someone explain to me what reasoning was used to validate Prop H8?

[Captain Hilts]

1. Folks voted for it. I think that's why. They probably want voters to overturn it.

That's my ignorant guess.

[Ian David]

4. Agreed. As I predicted would happen.

Court ruled on narrow grounds upholding prop 8 for non-marriage-related reasons.

However, I appear to have been wrong in my prediction that their opinion would have included a clear roadmap to reinstating Marriage Equality- unless I missed it.

[Freddie Stubbs]

14. The roadmap is clear: Amend the State Constitution by holding a new vote

If that vote fails. Hold another one.

[LynneSin]

5. actually that is the truth

I've read where many of these judges were upset with their votes but based it on the California Constitution and their hands were tied.

[Tesha]

25. Courts are just as political as any other branch, especially when they are elected justices.

And I'd say your reading of what happened is exactly correct and is,
in fact, what will eventually happen, perhaps as soon as 2010.

Tesha

[LynneSin]

2. From what I read the ruling was not about gay rights but the validity of the ballot measure

And unfortunately the judges were sticking with the law that the constitution could be amended by using this method.

It really sucks, it's painful, we want these judges tossed but they could be replaced with someone even worse.

In a post I started someone from California menioned that it takes like 2/3rds of the California Congress to raise taxes or pass the budget but I guess with these ballot measures it only takes 50%+1 vote to change their constitution.

That's is what is totally messed up. And I think what needs to be done is revisit this and change the law that mirrors what is required by Congress - 3/5 of the vote not 50%+1 vote.

[Captain Hilts]

7. That's the impression I had. Thanks. nt

[Stellabella]

22. That's a really good point.

And it takes 2/3 to override a veto. It should be 2/3 to amend the constitution. Maybe 3/4.

[zipplewrath]

3. Relatively narrow ruling

Technically, what they narrowly ruled was that the manner in which the amendment was passed was constitutionally permissible. If I read it correctly they didn't even consider whether the amendment itself was unconstitutional either at the state or federal level.

[customerserviceguy]

24. The only thing that would make an amendment "unconstitutional"

at the state level is if it were enacted improperly. That was ruled on today.

As for being Federally unconstitutional, show me where the Federal government has ever done a single thing to support equal marriage, even at the statutory level.

[Shrek]

6. Here's a relevant excerpt

From an article at MSNBC:

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument from gay-rights activists that the ban, Proposition 8, revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with the voter-approved Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."

They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

[Taverner]

8. The CA Supremes are spineless amoral fucktards

[jobycom]

13. That's the most legally accurate answer so far.

All these apologists are upsetting. The dissenting opinion explained it well--The court had previously ruled that marriage was a civil right guaranteed by the state constitution, and the only way to amend away a right is through a legislative amendment. The Constitution can be amended by majority vote through Propositions, but only if the amendment is "narrow and limited."

In other words, the majority ruled that Propostion 8 had a narrow and limited effect on the Constitution, despite the legal precedence that the Constitution considered marriage a CIVIL RIGHT. Therefore, your civil rights in California can now be overturned by a simple majority.

I'm glad I live in Texas.

[Taverner]

16. I'm still happy to be here in CA, but I hope protesters burn down churches

Seriously - they need to suffer, not us

I'd like to see some Conservatives suffer for a change

[jobycom]

17. Conservatives suffer by their very existence.

The part of our souls we retain by being liberal is a part they don't even realize they've lost, though it is the very thing which leaves the hollow hole they must fill with religion and drugs and money. It is the thing they are searching for, the thing they never find.

[customerserviceguy]

26. I sure hope not

Believe me, the freeptards would love to see that. It's their very last chance to keep a hold on that squishy "middle" that is OK with civil unions, but irrationally thinks that the label of "marriage" should be reserved for opposite-sex couples.

The radical sides of both the civil rights and the anti-war movements of the 1960's gave us eight years of Nixon and Ford. We damned near got stuck with another four of Ford, if he hadn't pardoned Tricky Dick, he probably would have won the 1976 election.

The mushy middle wants to feel comfortable. Seeing burning churches on TV doesn't produce that comfort.

[ColbertWatcher]

18. I think I understand it now.

Characterizing the reversal of previously recognized civil rights as "narrow and limited" is disgraceful.

I'm going to look for a link to Moreno's dissenting opinion.

[mnhtnbb]

9. Righteous and holy a$$holes got together to convince

everybody that people were going to marry turtles, your daughter would be raped by monkeys, the sky would fall and the earth would come to an end if gay and lesbian people were allowed to get married.

The Supreme Court of California decided that the Constitutional promise of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does not apply to gays and lesbians if a majority of folks don't like that option.

Period.

Bring on the right to enslave people again in Mississippi and Alabama. That's great reasoning, CA Supremes.
Surely the wonderful bigots of MS and AL are messing their pants at the prospect of applying the same logic
to puttin' black folk back in their place.

:wtf:

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. Justice George said:

that Proposition 8 did not “entirely repeal or abrogate” the right to such a protected relationship, but argued that it “carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term ‘marriage’ for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html?hp

So now they are going to carve out "narrow and limited exceptions????" They are gerrymandering the law. What will be the next little niche carved out.

[immoderate]

11. They voted the law.

I don't think Prop 8 could ever be passed again in California, not with the trend in other states.

--imm

[Hepburn]

12. Down and dirty on this:

The Cal voters have a right to amend the Cal Const. Period.

:grr:

I say the next thing we do after we pass a gay marriage amendment is to pass a 2nd amendment that outlaws conservatives on the Cal Supreme Bench.

:grr:

[Lerkfish]

15. I think the only correct course of action is to propose an amendment that invalidates

heterosexual marriage.

[kestrel91316]

20. Don't laugh. I'd vote for it. It would serve the fundie bastards right.

[Lerkfish]

23. oh, I'm dead serious.

I think its the only way to drive the point home

[and-justice-for-all]

19. The reasoning was bigotry and discrimination to validate Prop H8...

The Mormon church needs its tax exempt status pulled..

[ColbertWatcher]

21. That would be a nice consequence.

But--call me greedy--but, I'd like to see the Mormon's pay dearly for their deal with the devil and have this decision overturned.