Video: Michelle on the “insane rage” of the anti-Prop 8 mobs
posted at 6:01 pm on November 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
A video companion to her column this morning, soon to be rendered irrelevant by judicial decree. The California Supreme Court decided within the past hour to hear the constitutional challenge to Prop 8; doubtless the referendum will be struck down, thus restoring Californians to a blissful, undemocratic, mob-free existence and sparing Anthony Kennedy the unpleasant task of Doing What Must Be Done.
Exit question: Is Cali prepared for the inevitable backlash among rampaging Mormon hordes?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 5 Next »
I voted yes on 8. I voted for the previous gay marriage ban. If the SCOC overturns this thing…AAAAHHRRRRRRRGGHGHGHGHGHGHGH!!!!!
pugwriter on November 19, 2008 at 6:05 PM
No. No one could be prepared for such an event.
jimmy the notable on November 19, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Why don’t we just name a dictator now?
Cindy Munford on November 19, 2008 at 6:07 PM
O Ultimate Trustee, O Disposer of Affairs, knowing as thou dost, all things could you not see this coming?
Hint, hint–Loving vs Virginia.
matoko_chan on November 19, 2008 at 6:08 PM
On a related note, E-Harmony is being forced, by the long arm of the law, to create a site for gays and lesbians.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/EHarmony-Says-OK-to-Same-Sex-Matches.html
Kind of makes you wonder what’s next.
capitalist piglet on November 19, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Ha…exactly. California’s proposition process is a big farce that lets the public think that their voice counts. It doesn’t. The courts and legislature will always do whatever suits their agendas, the people be damned.
The allegedly democratic republic that we live in becomes more of a farce every day. What’s worse is most of the citizenry are too apathetic or even flat out dumb to do anything about it. Or even notice what’s happening.
Django on November 19, 2008 at 6:09 PM
If ever there were a time for rampaging Mormon hordes, the arbitrary invalidation of a provision of a Constitution by a group of Lawgivers-In-Black that have no authority to invalidate said provision is that time.
steveegg on November 19, 2008 at 6:10 PM
That why I
leftescaped Kaliforniagrapeknutz on November 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Yeah, why let them just do what they want? That’s crazy! Its a wonder women are still barred from Augusta.
Liberal. Fascism.
jimmy the notable on November 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Courts stepped in to override the majority of voters in many states over mixed-race marriage. I hope the courts don’t do it in this case, but there are times when individual rights shouldn’t be subject to majority votes.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 6:12 PM
It’s up to us, folks. Run for something, anything. Citizen government has faded. Let’s get it back.
pugwriter on November 19, 2008 at 6:12 PM
LaShawn Barber wrote about that case several years ago.
From June of 2006:
Loving v. Virginia: Legalizing Interracial Marriage
INC on November 19, 2008 at 6:13 PM
With apologies to Arnold Palmer; these rioters should be called Arnie’s Army after his comments encouraging their behavior last week.
meci on November 19, 2008 at 6:13 PM
I predict that a million Mormons will simultaneously say “Oh, gosh darnit” the moment the new of Prop 8′s striking down hits the wires.
thirteen28 on November 19, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Marriage is not an individual right. I am against two straight men getting married as well so there is no discrimination based on sexual preference.
Geochelone on November 19, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Here’s a TownHall column of LaShawn from 2007 on Loving v. Virginia:
INC on November 19, 2008 at 6:16 PM
Is the thought that gay couples with children will have a more stable family structure without a marriage certificate?
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 6:17 PM
This is part of the reason I think the ultimate target is the church. Some members of the gay community will not be content until they’ve destroyed those they see as “the enemy”.
I also think the guy who sued them is an idiot. He got a $5K settlement and a membership, or something like that, right? Why didn’t he just see a market opportunity, and start his own gay version of E-Harmony (or is it e-Harmony? Don’t know, never been there)?
capitalist piglet on November 19, 2008 at 6:18 PM
I hear what you’re saying but it’s not gays’ “individual right” to redefine marriage for the entire society.
Gays already have domestic partnerships in California and they’re legally identical to marriage. They always conveniently leave that out of the discussion.
Bootstomping the gay lifestyle down the rest of society’s throat is not about individual rights. It’s about a minority population defined by sexual behavior that want to rebuild society in their image.
Django on November 19, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Wisdom
lodge on November 19, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I’m having flashbacks to Rose Bird.
cthulhu on November 19, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I know, I am from Virginia. I have always thought this would be overturned but it sure is a waste of time and money plus I think it puts a wedge between the people and the government. In the past I have always thought of us actually being the government since we elect the representatives and gosh knows we pay the bills but obviously the representatives don’t listen. Another sit back and watch the show moment.
Cindy Munford on November 19, 2008 at 6:19 PM
The choice of who one prefers to have sex with is in no way comparable to the immutable color of one’s skin which is on display for everyone to see every time one goes out into public. That is why the whole “Loving vs Virginia” argument is infantile.
P.S. Anyone know where I might be able to find a ghetto stuffed full of homosexuals who have been denied their individual rights?
Fatal on November 19, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Absolutely the case, and worth repeating. This is the primary reason I think the ultimate target is the church – the “community” is not satisfied with having legal protections that are identical to marriage. They want the word. Why?
capitalist piglet on November 19, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Until there is absolute proof that homosexuals are “born that way” how can interracial marriage laws be considered as precedent?
gatorgirl on November 19, 2008 at 6:23 PM
We live in exciting times. Pandora’s box swings wide each day, bringing the thrill of unexpected consequences.
a capella on November 19, 2008 at 6:23 PM
capitalist piglet on November 19, 2008 at 6:22 PM
I dunno. Why did they tear up the little old lady’s cross?
Are they threatened by God’s word?
I’m just askin’…
kingsjester on November 19, 2008 at 6:25 PM
The streets will run red with scrap-booking supplies and homemade Christmas cookies.
RightOFLeft on November 19, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Cavuto: Are they emboldened by the election and majorities in the house and senate?
If that is the case, we are in for a bumpy ride if they think it’s their right to be moblike or thuggish.
However, I’d love to have one of those twerps to get in my face screaming at me about bigotry or accost me at any time.
tru2tx on November 19, 2008 at 6:28 PM
The ban on mixed race marriages as against equal protection because society has defined marriage between and man and a woman. Not white man, white woman. Now there may have been laws stating no mixed race marriages but that does not change the fact that society as a whole defined marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman.
Gay marriage is a different thing. It is not equal protection, it is special protection and a redefining of what a marriage is.
I as a hetro man cannot marry an man, I can marry a woman. A gay man can marry a woman also if he so wants to just like me. So there is no breach of equal protection.
jharada on November 19, 2008 at 6:31 PM
How long will it be before one of these protesters assaults a firearms owner and gets shot in self defense? Even if the shooting is judged to be self defense, the unfortunate citizen will be faced with yet another angry mob.
Mooseman on November 19, 2008 at 6:32 PM
*snort* *guffaw*
tru2tx on November 19, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Cavuto is very polite, he lets her have her say without significant interruption.
Spirit of 1776 on November 19, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Yes, and the possible “whys” evidenced by lesbian teachers in SF dragging elementary school kids to their weddings (among other things) are exactly what us “Yes on 8″ voters are voting against. This is about behavior, not skin color or religion or anything or that sort. And demanding that everyone give their de facto endorsement of that behavior is as anti-democratic as a society can get.
Django on November 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Good lord,wait till January 20th,and the day after
that,these nut-job Lefty Democrats will be in full
blown,
ABSOLUTELY PIED AND DRUNK ON POLITICAL POWER,
because in their sick minds,they have finally taken
back ‘THEIR AMERICA’!!
canopfor on November 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM
I guess I’m just “intolerant,” but I’m tired of being told what I’m supposed to believe. Doing my best not to sound judgemental, but I believe that homosexuality is wrong. So, it isn’t the marriage issue, per se, but that it is the attempt to shove what I believe to be immoral behaviour down my throat.
It’s bad enough that I have to explain to my 10-year-old that the two men he saw holding hands at the amusement park didn’t understand what God wanted and that it shouldn’t be seen as normal behaviour.
Please understand, this is not a condemnation. I don’t have that power. There are things I’ve done that I knew to be wrong at the time but did them anyway. That is, in my understanding, worse that doing things that one believes to be right. Therefore I am in no place to condemn.
“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
-Jesus
But I still need to teach my kids right from wrong. Some may see that as a contradiction, so be it. But I cannot pretend to be tolerant of things that are destructive and immoral.
pugwriter on November 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Mormons are pretty much pacifists. These wacko nut bags don’t fear picketting Mormon Temples, or disrupting Mormon church services or beating up on defenseless old ladies because they know that between them and their 15 buddies, they can handle an old lady.
I only wish it would come out that Muslims, in great number, voted for Prop 8. Let’s see the if the cowards would do the same against a group that would seek revenge. I would love to see what happens then.
DuctTapeMyBrain on November 19, 2008 at 6:39 PM
When have the LDS ever been rampaging hordes? As times in the past when we have been attacked, we will do what we always do – turn the other cheek. That’s not to say we won’t increase our food storage and stock up on ammo, because we will. We will hunker down for the long haul because we know a storm is coming. But if push comes to shove – you better believe that the LDS know how to handle themselves. By the way, I would love to see rampaging Mormon hordes. We will plaster them all in green jello with carrot shavings!!
aggie13 on November 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM
Everyone had an equal right to marry within their race. Gay men marrying women is bad, especially for a woman thinking her husband is straight.
There are differences between the two issues, and Loving isn’t an unambiguous precedent. My point above was broader, and that is having a court override the will of the majority is an important check on ensuring liberties. Might be a bad idea with this issue, but it has been a good idea at times in the past.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 6:40 PM
The truth is,, should the real majority of Americans get in gear and just say enough of this crap,, the Mormons, Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Libertarians and conservatives all, come together and start some real protests of their own,, the streets could not hold the numbers!
The victory does not go to the majority,, it goes to the determined and the zealous!
God help us! That we would be as passionate, determined and zealous for the preservation of our nation, our freedoms and even our families,, as homosexuals are for sex!
As long as they can display more passion about stepping on crosses and spitting on old ladies than we can in courage defending our rights as a Republic, we will not last as a people.
JellyToast on November 19, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Kinda makes me rethink my trip to San Diego next year, if this problem is not solved. If it so happens that my kids go with us I am not gonna subject them to violence and therefore, embarrassing explanations.
I have to make the point across that I have discussed this LIGHTLY with my kids, toning down on the sillyness that they believe is a girl kissing a girl and vice versa.
ProudPalinFan on November 19, 2008 at 6:42 PM
You know, just for shits’n'giggles we should riot.
And I mean riot. And I’m not talkin Detroit on Halloween stuff, I’m talking full on Road Warriror stuff.
Break out the stakes and pitch and remind them why they should fear Christians so much. Show ‘em how Nero lit up his nighttime chariot races.
Iblis on November 19, 2008 at 6:44 PM
People who draw absurd comparisons to miscegenation laws want to conflate “illegal” with “not legal”. There’s a difference between interracial marriage being “illegal” – and so subject to legal action, imprisonment, and so forth – and gay marriage being “not legal” – and so subject to people saying “who cares if you say you’re married”.
The difference isn’t inconsequential.
Lehosh on November 19, 2008 at 6:44 PM
Any protests in Michigan, Canada and Strip District in Pittsburgh? Send some Iraqis, Muslims, Indians and certainly, pis$ed off Puerto Ricans :D in a counter-protest.
Of course, let’s not forget the real hordes of African Americans that were the strongest of all voices. Yeah, blame it on the O…hope, change, and everybody’s equal yadda yadda yadda.
ProudPalinFan on November 19, 2008 at 6:47 PM
thomashton on November 19, 2008 at 6:47 PM
I thought Fox threw the angry cheerleader girl off their network.
benny shakar on November 19, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Because marriage is the foundation for the family, the foundation for a stable society – and the last bastion of the rights of the individual against the push of the state – particularly the tyrannical state.
“God made them man and woman.” That’s in Genesis and in the New Testament. The Judeo-Christian tradition is the foundation of Western civilization. Since too many people think that Western civilization deserves to be killed, they will not be happy until it is done from the inside out.
That’s why marriage and the family are the ultimate targets. Of course, since the Christian Church affirms the value of marriage and family the way God intended, it is a major threat to those who seek to destroy it.
That is why marriage must be redefined… and Christians persecuted to the point of complete isolation from society.
A t-shirt with the caption “So many Christians, so few lions” was spotted in (where else?) California. We know where it is all going.
newton on November 19, 2008 at 6:49 PM
I, consider myself reasonably bright, yet unable to get enough synapses firing at once to fully understand what you wrote. I think I agree with you, but choose to withhold confirmation until I’ve read your post twenty times and had three cups of French Roast. BTW, are you a lawyer?
pugwriter on November 19, 2008 at 6:50 PM
The Mormon Hordes!
Oh ya,I can just see how this will play out,now I know
why Hopey wants the “National Civilian Secruity Forces”!
Yup,its all coming together now,hordes upon hordes,as far as the eyes can see that will block out the Sun,wait a tick
they won’t be fly’n,scratch that one,okay,hordes of Mormons
in a battle that will make Helms Deep of LOTR,look like
a day of butterfly netting!
Yup there will be caranage on a Biblican scale!!Haha
(Snark!)
canopfor on November 19, 2008 at 6:50 PM
…….. Doubtless, the California Supreme Court remembers her. We are sick of this sh%t and have reached the tipping point!
Seven Percent Solution on November 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Why on earth is there a comma after the first word of my last post? Geez.
pugwriter on November 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM
It will only be a temporary reprieve for Kennedy. Sooner or later one of these “married” California couples will move to FL or AZ or one of the other states that will refuse to recognize their “marriage” and then the Supremes will have to take a stand.
AZCoyote on November 19, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Oops, thats Biblical,not Biblican!I apologize on that
Blasphemey!:)
canopfor on November 19, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Everyone will have to “try homosexuality”, so that they can come to understand it better and so the gays don’t feel as if they are out of the norm. For those who don’t decide that they like homosexuality, even after being forced to experience its wonders, they will be reeducated.
Also, all public discourse must start with the AXIOM that at least 50% of the population is homosexual. Anyone who says different will also be reeducated … after their jail terms for “homophobia” – which is to be declared a crime against humanity.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Excellent.
Cindy Munford on November 19, 2008 at 6:54 PM
In order to avoid the tyrannical state we rely on a majority of voters to define for a minority of the population who they can not marry?
Having the state get out of the marriage business might do more to reduce the risk of state tyranny.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 6:55 PM
I didn’t know you lost your job, benny.
HornetSting on November 19, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Except that Prop 8 wasn’t just a law. It was a constitutional amendment. If there is no way, none at all!, of overriding the will of the judges, then what’s the point?
What is the point of having a State constitution if it can never be changed – or if any changes to it are struck down by the judges?
apollyonbob on November 19, 2008 at 6:56 PM
I have had the pleasure to receive Mormons in my house, learned about their philosophy, religion, belief system and it was a very interesting journey.
Regardless of how this particular faith is being singled out here, under God as long as we all look up to him it does not matter what religion you have; I believe this was said by JPII. And I firmly believe in this.
All these attacks and spews on the LDS church or any other church, even though us believers tend to be quite tolerant, the one thing I suggest is communication from the LDS main temple in Utah, all the way to Rome and the rest of the world, and stop this madness from continuing. As with all situations, this is a test on how we perform in critical times; the Big Boss is looking down on us.
ProudPalinFan on November 19, 2008 at 6:57 PM
HornetSting on November 19, 2008 at 6:55 PM
LOL
Isn’t the Gay poulation 10 – 15% of the total?
kingsjester on November 19, 2008 at 6:58 PM
People like the look of the paper it’s written on. You have to have something in a glass case, somewhere, to show the tourists.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 6:59 PM
…sit back, grab a mess o’ popcorn, and watch democracy die….
…isn’t it nice for the electorate to have “grown-ups” out there…to protect us from our mistakes?
…the homosexual lobby knows what works in a republic, under the thumb of a 24-hour news cycle: the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Make enough noise, perpetrate every demogogic outrage you can your mitts on, and do it on camera…and you’ve won!
…Alinsky and Lenin would be proud….
…except that in a world run by Lenin, the boys and girls currently in the streets would be the first stood up against the wall…ironic, ain’t it?
Puritan1648 on November 19, 2008 at 7:00 PM
I was surprised that the Cali constitution could be amended by a simple majority vote. It sounds like it could just be re-amended in the opposite direction in 2 years–it seems less like a constitution than a collectin of opinion polls.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 7:00 PM
The nerve!!!
ProudPalinFan on November 19, 2008 at 7:01 PM
It is FUN when the left goes completely BATSH*T, even when they get what they want, a socialist leader.
So, they can’t “marry”. Who gives a fig?
IF they get they benefits for shacking up, how about those heterosexual couples that “shack” up. Do they get the SAME benefits as homosexuals? I smell a riot. Pass the butter.
HornetSting on November 19, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Just wait until the California Supremem Court declares the state’s constitution to be unconstitutional!
And we all thought that “that depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” was an aberration. No! It was a glimpse at the future.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Michelle has a knack for encapsulating an issue that really defies argument.
d1carter on November 19, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Idea?
In the spirit of an ‘American Carol’ Movie,
wouldn’t it be awesome to see a comedy movie
with a Republican perspective!
The movie starts with a few disgruntled Conservatives,
who ain’t gonna take it anymore,and decide to use the
Liberals approach,and start about gathering up every
stripe of Republican and they start to plot their
devisous plans on revolting by Rioting!!
Can You Digg It!!Ha ha:)
canopfor on November 19, 2008 at 7:04 PM
I feel like I got plugged in the ol’ keister on Nov. 4th. Does that count?
HornetSting on November 19, 2008 at 7:04 PM
It will be noted in your file, but not for credit :)
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 7:05 PM
I didn’t even get a kiss. Damn.
HornetSting on November 19, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Crap,thats should be devious,and not devisous!Ugh:)
canopfor on November 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM
I don’t know enough about the review process to know whether the state court can take into account whether a ballot proposition violates the federal constitution, or if it is a matter of whether one part of the state constitution violates another part.
dedalus on November 19, 2008 at 7:07 PM
They can’t rule on federal issues. I meant that they will find it unconstitutional as per the state constitution. It sounds insane, but just wait.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Um, s’cuse me??? We’re weanies. I”ll sit down now, sorry for interrupting your conversation, I mean, uh-hum, didn’t mean to intrude or anything, would you like a cookie? Again, so sorry.
SARC
Chewy the Lab on November 19, 2008 at 7:10 PM
I eagerly await my sample Hawt Lesbians.
Iblis on November 19, 2008 at 7:11 PM
It will be the first official introduction of the radical new concept of the “a la carte” constitution.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 7:12 PM
yeah, yeah (jumps up and down on bed and throws sexual toys in air to celebrate)so it’s ok to have a girl crush on Sarah????But what if I don’t want to “do” her?
Chewy the Lab on November 19, 2008 at 7:13 PM
INC, somehow I think the Cali Supremes are not going to be influenced by La Shawn. ;)
Do you remember when He Who Pastures the Stars (Allahpundit) explained the judicial argument for overthrowing prop 22 last summer?
I do.
lol.
matoko_chan on November 19, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Forced _______ until your “wants” change.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Ca Prop 8 adds “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
AZ Prop 102 adds “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”
Fl Prop 2 adds “In as much as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
I presume AZ and FL opponents are waitig for the CA 8 SC decision as a test case. The language in all three amendments seem identical.
DrW on November 19, 2008 at 7:20 PM
……… I think Barney Frank wants to move to California.
Seven Percent Solution on November 19, 2008 at 7:25 PM
As the republic of California shows, this pattern will become a traveling road show under the most merciful lord barry. Me thinks I’ll clean my weapons again, is that an angry Homo knocking ??
nowhiners on November 19, 2008 at 7:26 PM
…frankly, I’ve never believed for a moment that it’s about marriage…it’s about winning the argument.
…it isn’t even about homosexuals so much as it’s about folks who dearly want society tipped onto its ear….
…most of the homosexuals I’ve met were doing what the rest of us do every day: go along to get along…and don’t by and large either need or want the societal seal of approval to do so….
…the pouting rioters are doing all they can to poison the well…win the argument by judicial fiat and see what happens….
…it’s been push and push and push for forty years now…this narrow, smarmy slice of the homosexual whole don’t want an end to discrimination, real or the overwhelmingly more common imagined brand…they want conquest…and, failing conquest, chaos will be just dandy….
…the militants among them have effectively transformed an “alternate lifestyle choice” into a “hostile camp”…and they’re surprised when people resist them….
Puritan1648 on November 19, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Thanks for posting the video Allah, I’m usually still working when Cavuto’s show is aired.
The wacko leftist protesters prancing around like spoiled children are a site to see. Mean, hateful, enraged and completely wrong. May God forgive them.
Zorro on November 19, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Oh sure they can. State courts rule on questions of federal law everyday and twice on Sunday. It’s routine.
But in this case, the California Supreme Court will not take up federal law. It doesn’t need to. The petitioners claim that Prop 8 amounts to a revision of, and not an amendment to, the state constitution. If so, the voters may not revise the state constitution without the consent of the legislature.
So the only questions the California Supreme Court will consider here are questions of state law.
paul006 on November 19, 2008 at 7:39 PM
This is what happens when you have removed the Judeo/Christian belief system from society. The new religion of California, and in most states, is secular humanism/egalitarianism. Anything that smacks of unequality or injustice will be struck down in today’s courts. Whether it’s homosexual marriage, or homosexual adoption, or Islamic Sharia, or “mercy” killing, or abortion up to and including the 23rd month, all traditional laws and foundational values will be attacked by the new religion.
You can move to another state if you wish (I do live in Southern California), but don’t think you will have escaped the long arm of leftist judges. It will only be a matter of time before all states will be required to teach homosexuality as normal and acceptable, and anyone (including Christian pastors like myself) teaching otherwise will be declared guilty of hate crimes.
I have told my congregation that I fully expect, within the next 20 years or less, to be either fined or arrested for teaching the biblical truth that homosexual behavior is a sin.
A secular world-view cannot allow a contrarian viewpoint to survive. All traditional and Judeo-Christian beliefs must be eliminated for the inauguration the new “World Order.”
Joe Pyne on November 19, 2008 at 7:41 PM
I wouldn’t be surprised if “news” reporters and journalists all over the MSM are trying to paint the insane rage as coming from the right.
Already they’re pulling the Matthew Shepard card.
Ryan Gandy on November 19, 2008 at 7:41 PM
So do I. Proposition 8 is being challenged on procedural grounds. Supposedly this kind of amendment, er, revision requires approval by the legislature. It’s not a civil rights issue.
Bobbertsan on November 19, 2008 at 7:42 PM
Excellent segment, Michelle.
Once again….WHERE’S OBAMA???
Not to mention, where is our freakin’ governor.
The Ugly American on November 19, 2008 at 7:48 PM
If the California SC rules the proposition has no legal standing would this not be a clear indication of the incompetence of state AG Jerry “moonbeam” Brown?
In order for a propostion to reach a ballot it must pass through the AG’s desk and in fact JB was the one who titled Proposition 8..
Another interesting fact is that many of the same counties that overwhelming voted no on 8 also voted no on 4 about a parent’s right to know their child is getting an abortion..
So on one hand you have people screaming about civil rights yet denying parents their rights as parents.. something odd about this
theblacksheepwasright on November 19, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Not if, but when.
BallisticBob on November 19, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Our freakin’ Governor has already told the “no on 8″ folks to keep up the demonstrating until the courts over-effin-turn it.
BallisticBob on November 19, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Dedalus,
Just for completeness, the provisions for amending the Cali Constitution are as follows:
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18 AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION
SEC. 3. The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.
SEC. 4. A proposed amendment or revision shall be submitted to the electors and if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote
shall prevail.
I would assume that the passed amendment took effect the day after the vote (I saw no text in the proposition indicating otherwise) which would make it as much a part of the constitution as anything else. There is nothing in their constitution, that I can find, that allows the justices to rewrite the constitution they are sworn to uphold. Legal challenges were brought to keep it off the ballot, but they all failed, so I can’t see what challenges would be viable after it is actually incorporated into the constitution. Very strange stuff … well, for us who are for the rule of law.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 7:54 PM
We have past the moment of inertia on our voyage to anarchy and chaos. Massachusetts and Connecticut voters were not allowed to vote and now California voters will have their voices silenced. The gay community best arm themselves and prepare for the worst. History shows that this movement more than any other has lead to the destruction of traditional values and the very soul of America. Moral relativity was born from the womb of militant homosexuality; soon the piper will need to be paid!
dmann on November 19, 2008 at 7:57 PM
It would be illegal for the courts to overturn Prop 8 because Prop 8 is an AMENDMENT to the State’s Constitution which can only be legally changed by AMENDMENT. Ruling against a Constitutional Amendment by the CSSC would in effect, rule that the power of the courts are null and void in effect saying that the very powers given by the court by that Constitution are null and void. Welcome to a paradox!
Never, in the history of the U.S. has a court succeeded in usurping the complete power of the Constitution, which in fact, upon this ruling, would put every State’s Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, in jeopardy.
Imagine if an anti-gun group could sue to abolish the Second Amendment, or against the Full Faith and Credit Clause which is the reason anyone’s Marriage or Driver’s License is honored in all 50 states.
Those with the argument that States’ Laws have been overturned concerning rights for races to intermarry need to realize that those laws were never Articles or Amendments to the State’s Constitutions which may ONLY be AMENDED.
nelsonknows on November 19, 2008 at 7:59 PM
For a court to even hear this case would be Unconstitutional.
The U.S. is looking more and more like Nazi Germany each day.
nelsonknows on November 19, 2008 at 8:00 PM
I tend to think more of Bolshevik Russia.
progressoverpeace on November 19, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 5 Next »