Idiots!

Maybe my sister will move there.

Four lawyers trump the voters of California. Heh™.

Change!

Remeber this is California, the land of fruits and nuts.

I don't want to be forced into a gay marriage! Why would the state oppress us this way?
/

They meant "gay" as in happy, right?

/

So now John McCain can live openly with the Republican Party?

A parade will be held in SF on Saturday. Oh wait, there is a parade EVERY Saturday.

Sounds like "PROPOSITION TIME" in CA.

-S-

Hummm. Still time for defense of marriage referendums in various states to be set up? Could be a wedge issue for the Republicans.

The big question: "Full faith & credit"?

Activist judges. When you can't win inthe court of public opinion you file a lawsuit. You find enough liberal judges and they will agree to anything.

Yeah, stay home because McCain's a chump! The pendulum will surely swing back once the Dems have locked up the courts, the bureaucracy and legislated every nitwit pet agenda they can think of. Then we can really show 'em!

Divorce lawyers are out shopping for that new vacation home. Please leave a message.

Hang on to your hats.

And cover your butt.

Let it all hang out. Pretty soon they'll be nothing to live for...nothing to die for.

The USA=Europe.

Since when did the courts get to make the law? I thought that Californians had made their choice known by a referendum?

re: #16 pat

ROTF!

The bad news: This will only push weddings to a whole new level of opulence.

/shamlessly stolen from "The Onion"

They needed to legalize it? I didn't see much evidence that anyone was trying to stop it did you? My cousin is a cop in San Fran, oh the stories he tells about being hit on by gay men. He used to work in Vice and I cannot share some of those stories with you. I cannot wait for the implosion!

And soon they will do away with the Governorship and elect a Queen.

Legalized? I'm surprised they didn't make it mandatory.

re: #16 pat

HAHAHAHA!

re: #12 Occasional Reader

Precisely. It's a foot in the door -- if a marriage is legal in California, then you've got to recognize it in Kansas...although specifically banning it might get you around that. That's a legal question, and I don't even play a lawyer on TV.

Give them an inch. Uhh, scratch that.

There's a move to put a proposition on the ballot in November that would amend the state constitution to clearly spell out that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the Court could rule that that violates the Constitution and would not be permissible.

Never mind that the law struck down today was passed by the voters with a 60% majority.

Well since this now seems headed to the Ballot in CA this November, it may only help our cause by mobilizing the base like the Mass same sex debate did last time out.

re: #15 rwmofo

Divorce lawyers are out shopping for that new vacation home. Please leave a message.

LOL!

So much for the will of the people, judges know better than the lower voting classes.

# 22

And soon they will do away with the Governorship and elect a Queen.

CLASSIC!

It would seem that they're working for the GOP or something... It is wonderful that it brings close to home for conservatives what may happen if they stay home this election cycle.

Does this dovetail in some way with some of Pastor Manning's theories?

'It's for the children.'

. Oh, wait, no it's not.

re: #27 lawhawk

but the Court could rule that that violates the Constitution and would not be permissible

The Court could rule that a proposed amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional?!

re: #27 lawhawk

Yes, constitutional bans on gay marriage are very unpopular and will never happen.

Where does Obama stand?

BFD! California is like a bowl of granola. after the fruits and nuts, all you have is flakes.

re: #37 pat

With his back against a wall?
/

I now pronounce you husband and husband. Who gets the pretty ring?
-- * --

re: #16 pat

And cover your butt.

Butt to the wall, man......

This will go nicely with the... ahem... "M"-a-thon coming up on the 25th. California has become a moral cesspool.

re: #36 Killgore Trout

Yes, constitutional bans on gay marriage are very unpopular and will never happen.

LOL. My State, the bluest in the nation, changed it's Constitution immediately after our Court pulled this stunt. The Referendum was going to be razor thin, according to the MSM, with the gays prevailing. Passed 67%.

re: #35 Occasional Reader

Consider that some intrepid lawyer could seek to strike down the ballot proposal claiming that it is unconstitutional. Watch for that scenario.

Or, the Cal. S.Ct. could adopt the Mass S.Ct. position that its decision was not reversible by constitutional amendment; the court said it would strike such an amendment as a violation of the existing provisions of the state constitution.

re: #23 Diamond Bullet

Legalized? I'm surprised they didn't make it mandatory.

Nah. It'd take the 9th Circuit to do that.

re: #7 Sharmuta

They meant "gay" as in happy, right?

/

You're talking mythical, right?

}:)     [I, being a divorce survivor ... ]

re: #17 P. Aaron

Let it all hang out. Pretty soon they'll be nothing to live for...nothing to die for.

Whereas the methodology is certainly questionable (judges striking down the will of the people), I don't agree that legal gay marriages are the end of civilization and the world.

One man's vicotry is another man's bummer. Lawyers made millions in the lead up to gay marriage and they will make billions with gay divorce. No wonder they stand behind gays.

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

If you can't define marriage as between a man and a women, why do they define marriage as only between one man and one "other". I mean then why is polygamy wrong? just pointing out were this may be heading.

re: #35 Occasional Reader

The Court could rule that a proposed amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional?!

Yes. The court is God. (At least in their view)

Arizona Bay here it comes

re: #37 pat

Where does Obama stand?

He's a long-legged pimp.

re: #48 JamesTKirk

Then where do you draw the line? Two adults?
Legalized polygamy? What about their "rights"?

re: #34 Tumulus11

. Oh, wait, no it's not.

Actually you're on to something. When conservatives "come out" against this CHILDREN WILL STARVE! ...according to Barbara Boxer.

re: #14 Uncle Joe

Yeah, stay home because McCain's a chump! The pendulum will surely swing back once the Dems have locked up the courts, the bureaucracy and legislated every nitwit pet agenda they can think of. Then we can really show 'em!

EXACTLY! See, this is what we can expect from the SCOTUS once Barry gets elected. More and more activist judges just like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. This is the exact argument for voting FOR McCain OR against Barry.

If only James Bond hadn't thwarted Christopher Walken's plans in "View to a Kill" to detonate dynamite all along the San Andreas Fault Line and plunge California into the ocean.

If this case doesn't get the GOP energized about trying to limit the influence of activist courts, nothing will... Elections have repercussions and outcomes - and if you stand on the sidelines in a snit because you don't like McCain, you're going to get exactly what you deserve - even more activist judges that will pump out activist decisions and not based on the law. Penumbras and emanations indeed.

re: #50 pat

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

Give obama the White House and a few Supreme Court picks....

What gets me about this is that the court overturned and ammendment to the state constitution.

This is judicial activism on steroids.

Liberals may hail this as a great decision, but the same court could use the same power to dismiss the legislature and the governor and rule by decree.

What is going to stop them - the state constitution?

Man and beast are next. Of course, state's will start with civil unions, then find them unacceptable alternatives to marriage.

I can hear DUmmies screeching about this thread already.

California's New Slogan: Where the voice of the people in a Democracy just dont matter.

re: #28 Nevergiveup

...this November, it may only help our cause by mobilizing the base like the Mass same sex debate did last time out.

Make a big issue of this, and you'll kill any chance of major Democratic crossover votes to McCain (all those people who said they'd vote for him if their choice wasn't the Dem nominee).

re: #43 Cygnus

This will go nicely with the... ahem... "M"-a-thon coming up on the 25th. California has become a moral cesspool.

What's an "M"-a-thon?

states PIMF

re: #59 world b. free

If only James Bond hadn't thwarted Christopher Walken's plans in "View to a Kill" to detonate dynamite all along the San Andreas Fault Line and plunge California into the ocean.

And Superman stopped Lex Luthor from doing the same thing.

re: #60 lawhawk

If this case doesn't get the GOP energized about trying to limit the influence of activist courts, nothing will... Elections have repercussions and outcomes - and if you stand on the sidelines in a snit because you don't like McCain, you're going to get exactly what you deserve - even more activist judges that will pump out activist decisions and not based on the law. Penumbras and emanations indeed.

Other than "Penumbras and emanations"( got to give me time to look them up). What he said!

I just think the courts and legislatures have better things to do.

Like preventing the sharia law which would make Gay marriage a non-issue.....big time

re: #63 USA

Man and beast are next. Of course, state's will start with civil unions, then find them unacceptable alternatives to marriage.

Polygamy will come before that.

I'll take this over sharia any day. And she shouldn't forget that one of our greatest commentators on the subject of creeping sharia, Bruce Bawer, lives with a man.

re: #50 pat

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

It's living and breathing and has grown into a monster - it must be stopped.

I love my Country more than I hate McCain.

I love that bumper sticker.

re: #50 pat

When is the Court going to declare the Constitution unConstitutional?

That's what the Paulians want to do

re: #66 JamesTKirk

Make a big issue of this, and you'll kill any chance of major Democratic crossover votes to McCain (all those people who said they'd vote for him if their choice wasn't the Dem nominee).

Got a point there.

For some reason, even though I live at the epicenter of the gay marriage movement, this issue leaves me completely unmoved, one way or the other. To me, it's an unimportant side-issue affecting very few people that has been blown way out of proportion by both sides, on purpose.

If forced to take a stand, I'd have to come donw on the laissez-faire side of things: Marry whoever (or whatever) you want to marry. What's it got to do with me?

So, let the members of the Calif. Supreme Court marry each other,
who cares.

re: #55 Cygnus

What came first, Dick or "dick"?

re: #49 RoyalCanadian

One man's vicotry is another man's bummer. Lawyers made millions in the lead up to gay marriage and they will make billions with gay divorce. No wonder they stand behind gays.

Gonna' refrain.

This is perfect...the GOP and McCain ought to make the commercials and ads NOW! Simply bring this freaking activist court's decision to the public and tell them that this is exactly what they are voting for if they vote for Obama's change! Oh, i forgot, the republicans were neutered sometime ago and won't do it...

re: #78 zombie

my thoughts exactly.
Elizabeth Taylor did more damage to marriage than adam and steve

What is the big deal exactly? The people of California are extreme leftists who would support the privilege of Homosexuals to "marry" eachother, and the Government passed a bill saying such.

This is a State's rights issue, and has been decided upon by this State.

This IS California we are talking about.

re: #51 Nevergiveup

If you can't define marriage as between a man and a women, why do they define marriage as only between one man and one "other". I mean then why is polygamy wrong? just pointing out were this may be heading.

Or, group marriage.

re: #45 lawhawk

Or, the Cal. S.Ct. could adopt the Mass S.Ct. position that its decision was not reversible by constitutional amendment; the court said it would strike such an amendment as a violation of the existing provisions of the state constitution.

Wow. I had not heard that. It's simply... beyond parody.

"Your proposed amendment would violate the existing Constitution!"

Er... yeah, that's, um, kind of the point.

"SILENCE! We have spoken! So it is written, so it shall be done!"

re: #59 world b. free

If only James Bond hadn't thwarted Christopher Walken's plans in "View to a Kill" to detonate dynamite all along the San Andreas Fault Line and plunge California into the ocean.

Or Superman hadn't thwarted Lex Luthor's plans in "Superman" to detonate nuclear weapons all along the San Andreas Fault Line and plunge California into the ocean.

}:)     [Wait, that thinking is faulty ... ]

re: #66 JamesTKirk

"crossover votes" ? Hmmmm, like "swing votes"?

re: #51 Nevergiveup

If you can't define marriage as between a man and a women, why do they define marriage as only between one man and one "other". I mean then why is polygamy wrong? just pointing out were this may be heading.

thats just around the corner I fully agree. What about a man and a horse? I mean the gate's standing wide open

re: #14 Uncle Joe

Yeah, stay home because McCain's a chump! The pendulum will surely
swing back once the Dems have locked up the courts, the bureaucracy and
legislated every nitwit pet agenda they can think of. Then we can
really show 'em!

In 40 years. Just like the New Deal. We will be dead when the "pendulum swings back."

Dems have a way of hanging on to power. Decisions like this one give us insight into how.

re: #78 zombie

For some reason, even though I live at the epicenter of the gay marriage movement, this issue leaves me completely unmoved, one way or the other. To me, it's an unimportant side-issue affecting very few people that has been blown way out of proportion by both sides, on purpose.

If forced to take a stand, I'd have to come donw on the laissez-faire side of things: Marry whoever (or whatever) you want to marry. What's it got to do with me?

Exactly. Doesn't change my marriage in any way, shape, or form.

Besides, marriage is much healthier than random sex in bathhouses with thousands of strangers. And I'd rather see people at gay pride marches flashes their wedding rings than ... well, what they're flashing now.

This is the next enlightened step California should take.
Already being considered by some Europeans.

Go all the way! Why stop at a third of it?

The N.Y. Court of Appeals said it was up to the N.Y. legislature, elected by the people, to make this decision. By taking this decision away from the California legislature, the California Supreme Court exposes its arrogance and its contempt both for the elected California legislature, the elected governor of California, and the people of California.

Time for another one of your legendary Propositions, Californians!