California Supreme Court Agrees To Decide Constitutionality of Prop. 8

49 votes

hosted.ap.org — California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Explore Mixx

Michael Hill's 'invisible' houses get go-ahead

Michael Hill's 'invisible' houses get go-ahead

Jewellery magnate Michael Hill is to get his underground houses. In a decision released yest...

Related By Keyword

Related Photos

  • Gay marriage protests, Boston
  • Miss California Carrie Prejean Fired Playboy | 90CUT.com

Comments (7)

  1. Great news.

    • (0 Kudos received)
    1. @beltwaybuzz I agree. How hate can be constitutional is beyond me.

      • (0 Kudos received)
  2. Do those who already have married have to divorce?

    • (0 Kudos received)
    1. @onreact.com From what I understand, yes....It retroactively cancels all marriage licenses given to same-sex couples.

      • (0 Kudos received)
    2. @onreact.com

      their marriages are not being recognized currently. So no, they don't have to divorce because they were never married, according to the way things are not. If the Cali supreme court overturns prop 8, then their marriages will be recognized once again.

      • (0 Kudos received)
  3. This is the key phrase:

    "The measure represents such a sweeping change that it constitutes a constitutional revision as opposed to an amendment, the documents say. The distinction would have required the ban's backers to obtain approval from two-thirds of both houses of the California Legislature before submitting it to voters."

    Even though the gay marriage ban is one one of two lines of text, it represents a HUGE changed for the California constitution. Even the yes on 8ers agree to that, in fact, that's what they built their whole campaign on. They said over and over that allowing gay marriage "re-defines marriage" and will changed everything in California. But such a huge, sweeping change calls for 2/3 of votes, and they only got 52%. The measure should never have passed in the first place.

    • (1 Kudos received)
    1. @calinazaret well put

      • (0 Kudos received)

Login now to post your comment.