News tonight is not looking too good with the CA Court -- although it seems the courts may rule that those already married are still married. In the future marriage is one man/one woman. Seems schizophrenic but I guess California law allows the voters to take away rights of others.
News from SFGate and LA Times.
Archive video of the hearings is here.
Pray your brains out.
14 comments:
It´s only a matter of time. We´ve got all the time there is in the World...LGBT human beings are like China, we will always be.
I think the papers are premature on their assessment - sort of trying to read tea leaves that are still swirling
Remember that last year everyone said the court would say "no" go same gender marriage. we were all shocked when they said "yes."
Let us all pray that we are pleasantly shocked again by this court.
But, remember, if they overturn 8, the bigots will not give up.
If they uphold 8, we shall not give up.
We lost.
2010. Start talking now. This is going to the next ballot.
IT
These are strong folks. I cannot see how they can rule as they did originally and then contradict themselves. It is illogical. Tea leaves are sometimes just tea leaves.
What if gays had won the right to marry by initiative and a later initiative took that right away? George asked.
"Are you saying it is a one-way street -- that you can extend rights by way of initiative and take them away only by revision, the same rights?"
Um, duh: Yes. Exactly. It should be orders-of-magnitude MORE DIFFICULT to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS, than to obtain them!
(Is the idiot running the asylum here? >:-/)
I still think you're being instinctively pessimistic, IT. I was one of those people who thought there wasn't a chance-in-hell the SC would rule in favor of marriage equality last spring, and I was wrong then. Now, I'll just wait and see, which is all anyone NOT on the SC can do...
...besides gear up for 2010, that is. ;-)
[IT, DO take some comfort in the almost-sure safety of YOUR marriage? None of us still out in the cold begrudge you that, 'kay? {{{hugs to you&BP}}}]
What's the point??!??
It's just not our time.
From Time via Yahoo:
Thursday's three-hour session did indicate that the primary argument advanced against Prop. 8 faces big hurdles in the court. Even the lawyers who are asking the court to declare Prop. 8 invalid because it is more like a constitutional revision - which would require approval by lawmakers as well as by voters - conceded, when asked by the court, that there is essentially no precedent in the court's history that directly supports their position. "We have a pretty well established body of law pertaining to what is and what is not a revision, and those decisions do not give strong support to your position that the people couldn't do when they did when they invalidated or disagreed with one aspect of the marriage decision," Kennard said. "Our past decisional law doesn't support the argument that the people couldn't do what they did."
Hearing Kenneth Starr say that the people can take away anyone's rights about anything should scare the justices. I think they recognize that this is new ground for case law. I remain hopeful.
Prayers ascending! here and elsewhere. Always hope!
Maybe the time hasn't come just yet, but it will...
... and remember how this will look in 50 years ;=)
I'll almost certainly be dead in 50 years.
Oh poo, IT. You're younger than I am, and I have EVERY intention of being around (living and breathing, that is) in 50 years...
...and so will my wife (Please Dear God!).
JCF, I don't think a few months counts as younger in any significant way. Demography suggests that if either of us is still around at the age of 96, we are unlikely to be aware of it.
Hey, hey, hey - I am planning for 106 and I intend to be alert and at least playing scrabble - albeit slowly! :-}
Post a Comment