The constitutional amendment by way of referendum require you to propose it with no malicious intent such as discriminating a minority group. And in this case, no matter how proponents of Prop 8 spin it, the underlying intent of this proposed amendment is crafted under an environment that (and by such people who) fundamentally discriminate against homosexuals in their minds. I believe this was the main judicial issue which led to Prop 8 being struck down in the first place. Also, most people who complain about democracy being trampled by the courts also don't understand the whole checks and balances thing. It should be common knowledge to be spread in the education system that the court of a competent jurisdiction has the power of constitutional review, and thus can quash laws that is logically inconsistent with the constitution. Perhaps the problem is that most people do not use logic to evaluate political situations.
So does it mean marriage is allowed again in California, like the stay is finally lifted? Or what does this mean.
it means that people have petitioned to have the stay lifted. I think the pro-homophobia movement (might as well call it what it is), has filed briefs asking that the stay be maintained.
Yep, just another PLEA to stop discrimination inflicted by our govt. The 9th will take their sweet time to respond while we all sit in suspense, hoping for some crumb of kindness by lifting the stay. Predictably, they will deny us once again. I was wrong about DADT repeal legislation passing (although it's still in effect), and I hope I'm wrong about this, but I highly doubt it. We eagerly sit like dogs under a banquet table, hoping for someone on high to drop a crumb, a scrap, anything to distract us from the fact that we're not allowed to join the feast that full US citizens are entitled to enjoy.
well technically, prop 8 already was deemed unconstitutional by the 9th court. the stay is a common practice when it is known that the losing side plans to appeal, which was apperent that the prop8 proponants were determined to do, and stated openly since they already knew they were going to loose the first bench trial. The stay was put in place until appeal could be heard by a tri-judge bench trial. It is not likely that the proponants can get the existing ruling in the cast reversed, so it is logial and reasonable to lift the stay. I think when they lose this next stage, it will go to a full judge bench trial in the 9th district, and once they lose that, then if I remeber correctly, it goes to the supreme court.
From what I've read, in order to stay the decision there is supposed to be harm caused to the losing party by the decision. No one is harmed by gay couples getting married, yet gay people and their families are harmed by marriage discrimination as was clearly shown in the testimony and Judge Walker's ruling. It's totally backward which is what's so frustrating about it.
hate to say it, but if it is not infuriating, then it isent proper legal procedure. it is better to suffer a short time and win, than to get something taken away from you further down the road.
