Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Prop 8 day at Supreme Court

    Prop 8 day at Supreme Court

    Today at 10 a.m. is the argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, also known as the California Proposition 8 case.  Tomorrow is argument in the Defense of Marriage Act case.

    It’s hard to believe that this day has arrived.  We have been covering Prop 8 almost since the beginning of this blog.  The early posts were about the boycott movement:

    Boycotts and secondary boycotts continued to be a key part of the campaign in an attempt to delegitimize support for retaining the historical definition of marriage:

    But most of our coverage centered on the court cases at the state and then federal level:

    In the run-up to today’s argument, the Transparent ref gaming of Sup Ct on gay marriage has gone into hyper-drive, with Democratic politicians jockeying for position on the issue and the media declaring, much as it did with Obamacare, that the Supreme Court will be damaged if it is on “the wrong side of history.”  The irony is that the demand that the Supreme Court bow to the emerging popular will is used as a reason why the Supreme Court should not allow the popular will (i.e., voters) to have a say.

    The framework of today’s case is at SCOTUSblog. There is no live audio (it will be released later today).  Here’s a live Twitter feed:

    [Twitter feed removed]


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Sanddog | March 26, 2013 at 11:32 am

    Many of the same people who believe that gay marriage is a human right or an inalienable right, have absolutely no problem placing government restrictions on my 2nd amendment rights.

    “Wants” aren’t the same thing as “rights”.

    They told us not to talk about “social issues”. They told us that there are priorities. Today, we don’t talk about wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, etc.; we don’t talk about Navy Seals dying on a helicopter; we don’t talk about Benghazi; we don’t talk about the federal government arming a drug cartel in Mexico; we don’t talk about the federal government arming terrorists in Libya or Syria; we don’t talk about the federal government saving GM, paying of the union, and depriving non-union employees of benefits; we don’t talk about “affordable” health care reform, which does not address progressive inflation, and does not increase supply to meet demand; we don’t talk about infantile energy policies, which deprive us of reliable energy, and increase the cost of energy; we don’t talk about trillion dollar account deficits, which are a progressive devaluation of capital and labor; we don’t talk about illegal aliens displacing American men, women, and children; we don’t talk about illegal aliens who don’t care about the conditions which motivated their emigration; we don’t talk about fanatical environmental policies which deprive people of energy and displace them from their land; we don’t talk about “green” technology which cause environmental disruption before manufacturing and while deployed; we don’t talk about Obama’s campaign finance irregularities; we don’t talk about that most most murders with a gun are caused by government agents, gangs and other criminals, and suicides; we don’t talk about elective abortion (i.e. premeditated murder) is a violation of basic human and civil rights, and is the leading (around one million annually in America) cause of preventable deaths.

    Let’s instead talk about selective rights and the normalization of dysfunctional behaviors. The homosexual men and women, and their heterosexual patrons, demonstrate a unique prejudice.

    Forward to dysfunctional convergence!

    BarbaraS | March 26, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    The fact is that the voters of California voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage on the ballot. The people even voted to add this ban to the state constitution. One liberal judge who recently showed his prejudice for gays themselves) overturned the will of the people. Gays in California harassed every donor they could find and rioted. This issue should not even have reached the Federal Court of Appeals much less the SC. This is a state issue and the people decided. My first question is: How can one judge overturn a ballot issue on his own with the nebulous reason that Prop i8 not being fair to a certain group of people? My second question is: what is the use of citizens voting if courts can decide the issue was “illegal” and should not have been on the ballot in the first place? Marriage itself is aa religious issue. Government became involved for their own reasons.

    Browndog | March 26, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    Prop 8 was a Constitutional Amendment, making it part of the California Constitution.

    If a State’s Constitution can be deemed unconstitutional by the High Court, what prevents them ruling parts of the U.S. Constitution unconstitutional?

      Ragspierre in reply to Browndog. | March 26, 2013 at 12:26 pm

      A state could amend its constitution to deny a right under the Constitution. The Supremes SHOULD have the ability to strike that down.

      And that is the issue here: is there a Constitutional “right” to marry. (I assert there is NOT, as the states have always imposed restrictions on who could marry).

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend