http://pleasantonweekly.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=10288


Town Square

Supreme Court justices appear to favor cautious approach, narrow ruling on Prop 8

Original post made on Mar 27, 2013

U.S. Supreme Court justices pondering the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 appeared to favor a cautious approach to what Justice Anthony Kennedy called "uncharted waters" during a hearing Tuesday.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, March 27, 2013, 7:45 AM

Comments

Posted by Ben Johansen, a resident of Birdland
on Mar 27, 2013 at 12:07 pm

A few things to note... first, why ask a professor at SF State who is probably very liberal for a comment. Not sure how she calls herself a constitutional law professor since...
When was this issue NOT constitutional? Hence, it is up to the States to decide this issue.
Why did the State of California not represent the proponents of Prop 8 when that is what they are supposed to do when the passage was passed by the majority of the people of the State? Answer, because the politicians, and the attorney general and all the other liberals did not want it to pass to begin with.
The State Constitutional Amendment was passed the proper way with the majority of the people. Why should a few people be able to overturn it through the courts the IMPROPER way? Deal with the loss, and go the proper way to have a new Constitutional Amendment passed...


Posted by BJ, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2013 at 12:28 pm

... and, no, I'm not a bigot. Really.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2013 at 2:07 pm

Julie is a registered user.

Ben...Wow...

First, why question the ability of a person to be a Constitutional Law Professor simply because they practice in San Francisco?

Second, READ. She is not from S.F. State, but from USF - a JESUIT institution! Now what do you think of her bias? By the way, she was only stating facts and hypotheses...not opinions.

You are correct with one thing - many did not want Prop 8 to pass, because it is WRONG!

The best argument for upholding Prop 8 is: "that heterosexual marriage is a "bedrock social institution" that encourages responsible procreation." Seriously? So, the middle aged/elderly, infertile couples, or those who don't like/want children should also be denied the right to marry? What exactly is "responsible procreation"? I've met some pretty horrible MARRIED parents out there!


Posted by nancy s., a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2013 at 3:10 pm

I just do not understand why anyone feels they have the right to deny people their freedom to marry, whether it is to another man, another woman, or a person of the opposite sex. This is todays world, remember Darwin, we must evolve.

The same epeople that oppose gay marriage support the second ammendment, which when drafted and ratified only had in existance single shot black powder rifles/guns, and therefore does not fit into today's world.The right to bare arms definetly needs to be changed.


Posted by not perverse, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2013 at 3:26 pm

Wouldn't it be a wonderful world where you could pick and choose which laws you wanted to obey or enforce? Were it not for a loud and whiny gay lobby, our state (and national) politicians would not have necessarily followed the unconstitutional path they are on.
Once again, the state proposition process has been neutered, not unlike the detractors of prop. 8.

nancy, "The same epeople that oppose gay marriage support the second ammendment, which when drafted and ratified only had in existance single shot black powder rifles/guns, and therefore does not fit into today's world.The right to bare arms definetly needs to be changed." You are dillusional in your comparison of apples & oranges or Adam & Steve.
To follow your logic, using the 1st amendment as an example, since the internet wasn't available for you to publish your lunacy in the 1700's, your posts and the internet should be outlawed. Enough with you going off half-cocked about gun rights....you're shooting yourself in the foot.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Mar 27, 2013 at 3:30 pm

I think it's best not to try and second guess the US Supreme Court. It seems to me that from reports on TV, that the judges asked all of the necessary questions and now they need to deliberate. I have faith in the US Supreme Court and look forward to hearing their decisions.

To a certain extent I think that it matters to Americans whatever the outcome.

However,we'll have to patient for awhile.

VIVA AMERICA! VIVA!


Posted by Godless, a resident of Downtown
on Mar 28, 2013 at 8:51 am

.
.
.
We don't live in a theocracy. The only arguments against gay marriage have been from people spewing bible verses. So, let the tenets supporting the separation of church & state prevail!
.
.
.


Posted by Julie, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Mar 28, 2013 at 1:07 pm

Julie is a registered user.

"Loud and whiny gay lobby"? Wow. I guess you think it was all those "loud and whiny women" out there pushing for their right to vote. And, all those "loud and whiny black people" out there having the nerve to want to use the same bathrooms as us white folk.


Posted by Nosy Neighbors, a resident of Pleasanton Heights
on Mar 28, 2013 at 2:27 pm

Nosy Neighbors is a registered user.

The only argument against this appears to come from the so-called religious right whose only argument is from a social, personal values based judgement and nowhere takes into consideration the rights granted to EVERY citizen by the US Constitution.

If you think gays & gay marriage is "icky", don't marry a gay person & get over it. Don't like abortion? Don't have one & work towards adoptive alternatives.

The sooner the political parties understand this and begin to omit the BS social issues from their platforms, lobbying and propaganda the sooner that this nation will be able to focus on & address the critical issues of what really affects this country, our national safety, energy policies and economic stability.

Wow, I think the Libertarian Party just acquired a new member.