December  2008 ISSUE

We do not make jokes, we simply watch the LA Times, the Orange County Register and CID/HOA board of directors and report the facts!

California Supreme Court Takes Up Prop. 8

Posted by: CotoBlogzz | 11/20/2008 10:00 AM

The California Supreme Court has accepted original jurisdiction of three cases that claim Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision rather than a constitutional amendment and thus should not have been presented to voters. The implications of the Court’s order accepting the case, is that  a ruling on Prop 8’s validity can be expected in a matter of months, rather than potentially years of protracted litigation. The cases seeking to invalidate Proposition 8 are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.

The Court denied the request of unrelated parties, including the Campaign for California Families (CCF), to intervene in the litigation.

Perhaps the most significant part of the Supreme Court’s order is to deny the requests of the plaintiffs in the aforementioned three cases to stay the implementation of Proposition 8. This means that, once the vote is certified, Proposition 8 will take effect as of midnight, November 5th. The Constitution of California has been amended to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California.

Also of key significance, the Court has granted the request of the proponents of the initiative and their campaign committee to intervene in the litigation as Real Parties in Interests. This ruling grants the backers of Prop. 8 full legal standing to submit written arguments and appear in oral argument before the Court

“This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of California,” said ProtectMarriage.com General Counsel Andy Pugno.  “The California Supreme Court is recognizing the People’s vote on Proposition 8 and is allowing the measure to go into full effect,” Pugno said. “This is a great legal victory for voters.”

	COMMENTS    It was the court that allowed the initiative to be placed on the ballot in the first place.  How can the court now rule that it was not done properly?   This is just to prevent riots by gay activists for now.  Joe Morabito

Joe:

Excellent observation about the Supreme Court. 

What about our elected representatives – they are supposed to represent the values of the people, yet, from the governor to Diane Feinstein to the Attorney General, the Board of Education and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, to name a few, they lined up to defeat prop 8, and or to support a legal challenge.

Ironic that in the State that defined direct democracy, precisely to hold elected representatives accountable, these elected officials are now fighting direct democracy

In the misguided words of  Gloria Molina, member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors

"I am proud to present this motion-co-sponsored by my colleague, Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky to join an existing lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8.   While the focus is on the gay and lesbian community, I think this is a civil rights issue for everyone. Every vulnerable minority group in this state should be extremely concerned about the ability of the majority to reach into the constitution and change it to single them out and opt them out of the constitution's protections. That is something no one in this state can or should support. And it is something I intend to fight against."

The “rights” argument is not a rights argument – it is a values argument.  In this case, the opposition to traditional marriage prefer to see social castration, where people are hermaphrodites and hence their values are not only tolerated but accepted by the masses.

Now you're just being silly. Just as you want your 'direct democracy' to take away rights and treat people less than and differently, these intelligent humans who also happen to be in public office disagree with your bigotry- it's really not complicated. Sandra

So that I avoid being silly in the future: Can you please explain to me what you understand direct democracy to be? Further, can you explain what representative democracy is - then apply what you understand to the issue?

Now, consider that Gays, Lesbians and Transexuals have every single right to protection under the law, under the current system

Further, consider that the same group not only want to be tolerated, but they want to be accepted - accepted as in shoving their beliefs on the majority of the people - that is what the hermaphrodite argument. It is not longer a He, a She or HeShe, and not a marriage between a Man and a Woman, but between HOHs: Him, or Her, or HimHer.

I hate to break the news to you, but the HOHs, lifestyle is not unique. A good segment of society now prefer to live in cyberspace, and hence the proliferation of virtual reality and 3-D avatars. Just like in the Japanese case, he has gotten a good number of signatures so he can marry an avatar. Why not?

What about the person who likes animals and wants to marry a dog?

Select Blogzz & click icon

RedCounty NewzzVinezz FeedBurner CotoBlogzz CotoBlogzz Y!360Blogzz

Archived Issues

Advertising rates/info

CotoBuzz Classified

General Information

ADVERTISEMENT