proposition 8 |
proposition 8 |
*Janette* |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Guest ![]() |
QUOTE By a vote of 6-1 (with Justice Carlos Moreno dissenting), the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 -- while preserving the marriage licenses of 18,000 same-sex couples who wed in the months prior to the November election. Paul Hogarth is reading the 185-page Court decision as we speak, and will be reporting later today with his legal analysis of the Court's reasoning. http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/BREAKI...rop_8_6962.html discuss. |
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
![]() Sarcastic Mr. Know-It-All ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 2,089 Joined: Dec 2003 Member No: 29 ![]() |
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm acknowledging that Baker is valid precedent ("I'm not denying Baker as precedent, since it's fairly obvious that it is"), but that with the trend leaning towards a legalization of gay marriage, I don't think it'll be precedent for much longer. Like how Plessy was precedent before Brown ruled it unconstitutional. OK, so if you acknowledge the current precedent, do you admit your previous argument is null and void? Besides, I'm not quite sure there is a trend, given that for every state that votes to allow gay marriage, there are just as many that vote to ban it. Not counting the ones that keep the status quo where gays aren't allowed to marry. But hey, I hope you're right about this trend thing when it comes to Roe v. Wade. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |