Cowardly "No on Prop. 8" supporters in California?

[Straw Man]

That would be the following (from Wikipedia):


Early legal challenges

On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied, without comment, a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment. As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005-1006.) The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved, and a new petition arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision was filed by civil rights groups on November 5, 2008.

why didn't you highlight this part?

[MCWAY]

why didn't you highlight this part?

Call it poster’s prerogative.

I also mentioned that the attorney general looked over Prop. 8, as well. Again, any constitutional problems could have and should have been addressed six months ago.

Besides, I also mentioned (per the Chronicle's article) that, while there's room for a postelection challenge, this is a big hurdle for the plantiffs. If they can’t show that Prop. 8 equates to a constitutional revision, Prop. 8 stands.

[Straw Man]

Call it poster’s prerogative.

I also mentioned that the attorney general looked over Prop. 8, as well. Again, any constitutional problems could have and should have been addressed six months ago.

Besides, I also mentioned (per the Chronicle's article) that, while there's room for a postelection challenge, this is a big hurdle for the plantiffs. If they can’t show that Prop. 8 equates to a constitutional revision, Prop. 8 stands.

agreed  - that is the crux of the matter.     

[Deicide]

I just wish the gays and the religious would kill each other; don't mind the gays much but it would be cool without the Christians..

[MCWAY]

agreed  - that is the crux of the matter.     

Indeed. But, the problem is that it doesn't favor the plantiffs, as "The court has almost always rejected such challenges to other constitutional amendments."

[Straw Man]

Indeed. But, the problem is that it doesn't favor the plantiffs, as [i]"The court has almost always rejected such challenges to other constitutional amendments."[/i]

yeah - well this one is unique given that it takes away existing rights. 

We'll see what happens.

I guess if the case goes to the Supreme Court and is rejected or fails then a new ballot initiative can be proposed to rescind Prop 8 at the next election and this can just become a political volleyball every election year.

[MCWAY]

yeah - well this one is unique given that it takes away existing rights. 

We'll see what happens.

I guess if the case goes to the Supreme Court and is rejected or fails then a new ballot initiative can be proposed to rescind Prop 8 at the next election and this can just become a political volleyball every election year.

No, it doesn't, because the courts can't give rights to anybody. The CA court acted irresponsibly by not staying theyir ruling until November, knowing that this amendment would be on the ballot, regardless of how they ruled on Prop. 22 (the law in 2000, deeming marriage as only a union between a man and a woman).


Plus, back in July, the CA court "(Meeting in closed session)......denied a petition calling for the removal of the initiative, Proposition 8, on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/17/local/me-gaymarriage17

That goes back to what I said earlier. To say that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional in November, when it wasn't such in July (or May, for that matter) makes no sense.

[Straw Man]

That would be the following (from Wikipedia): As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005-1006.) The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved

you're right

[MCWAY]

I saw this on the O’Reilly Factor last night. Once again, some bastions of bravery from the “gay rights” crew show their stripes, crashing a church service in a state, not even involved in what went down in California two weeks ago (Michigan did pass its marriage amendment in 2004). Heck, this church ain’t even Mormon.

Gay rights protesters disrupt Sunday service
People threw fliers, shouted slogans at Delta Township church[/b]

DELTA TWP. - A radical gay rights group is claiming responsibility for a protest Sunday at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township.


Protesters who entered the Creyts Road church along with worshippers surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as "It's OK to be gay," and "Jesus was a homo," according to David Williams, communications director at the church. His father, Dave Williams, is the church's longtime pastor. He was not preaching at the church Sunday.

Another group of protesters demonstrated outside the church at the same time as the indoor protest.

The Eaton County Sheriff's Department responded to the scene Sunday but no arrests were made.

In a released statement, David Williams said churchgoers were unclear as to the purpose of the demonstration.

A Lansing group affiliated with a radical gay organization known as Bash Back, formed to protest the Republican and Democratic national conventions earlier this year, put out a call on the Internet on Oct. 7 for activists to come to a "radical queer convergence" in Lansing on Nov. 7-9.

A posting on its MySpace page declared the convergence a "fierce success."

Fire alarm pulled

According to a report on the Bash Back group's news site, protesters inside the church pulled a fire alarm, unfurled a banner from the church balcony, shouted and threw fliers to the worshippers.

Outside the church, protesters carried picket signs and an upside-down, pink cross.

The conservative RightMichigan Web site posted an account of the incident Monday, and a number of conservative bloggers had picked up on the item by Tuesday.

Williams said the church had received 80 to 85 e-mails and phone calls by Tuesday, "from churches and individuals around the country to express their concern and general disgust for what happened on Sunday."

Nick De Leeuw of RightMichigan said he got his account of the incident from a church member who was there.

However, he said, the photo along with his report - of protesters dressed in black with their faces covered by pink, Middle-Eastern style headcoverings - was not from the protest at the church but from an earlier Bash Back protest elsewhere.

No arrests made

Mount Hope Church, affiliated with the Assemblies of God denomination, teaches followers that homosexuality is a sin.

However, "Mount Hope Church strives to follow Jesus' example of loving the sinner but not the sin," Williams said.

The Eaton County Sheriff's Department got a call regarding the protest at about noon Sunday, said Lt. Jeff Warder.

Warder said protesters outside the church left peacefully when someone from the team of pastors came outside and told them they were not welcome on church property.

Warder said deputies did not handle the protest inside the building.

No arrests were made.

In New York City on Tuesday, the conservative Catholic League said it would ask Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox to investigate the protest.

Typically, the sheriff's investigation would be turned over to the county prosecutor if the sheriff felt charges were warranted, said Matt Frendewey, spokesman for the attorney general's office. He said it would be rare for the attorney general's office to get involved in such a case.








http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369