It will be upheld. But we have to prepare for ballot initiatives launched by those who would destroy marriage, as early as 2010.The "Protect Marriage" attorneys are happy about this, because otherwise litigation would have gone on forever in lower courts.
And according to the San Francisco Chronicle this morning:
"...Kennard's vote a bad sign?" (of course, what's considered "bad" by the San Francisco Chronicle is generally considered to be good by a normal human being).
"While both sides cheered the court's decision to take up the cases, Kennard's lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.
Kennard is the court's longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples' rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.
"It's always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn't warrant review," said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.
For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, "I would not think it would be encouraging," said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court."
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
3 comments:
Or it would be considered a good sign by the Catholic clergy who are worried about paying alimony to their altar boys.
Anon #1-
Really, that's incredibly clever and original. Never heard a joke like that before. Give yourself a pat on the back for being so original. You just have such a great wit, maybe you should have a TV show or something.
To the brilliant post at the top. You’re remarks are dim I see no light with what you say but rather dark and shallow cuts
Post a Comment