![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
With bated breath, the 4,000 defiant of the law, and many other are too excited and would mob City Hall on June 16, unless, the USA S. Court stays: Note that the CA ruling is 4-3 or a split decision. Hence, anything goes on June 16: In a one-page Resolution, the California Supreme Court on June 4, 2008 forthwith denied all petitions for rehearing and to reconsider the May 15 ruling, as it removed the final obstacle to same-sex marriages starting on June 17. It further rejected moves to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November election, when voters will decide whether to reinstate a ban on same-sex nuptials. Chief Justice Ronald George and Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno, voted for the resolution, while dissenting or voting to reconsider the judgment, were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan. chicagotribune.com, Calif. court refuses to stall gay marriageThe judgment stated: “The decision filed on May 15, 2008, will become final on June 16, 2008, at 5 p.m.” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that marriages would be held “5:01” on June 16. nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriages latimes.com, California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage Moreover, a field poll in late May, reported that "51% of registered voters in the state favored the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 42 percent opposed.". nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriages-- Florentino floro ( talk) 09:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The ruling is based on the CA Constitution and therefore cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Agnosticaphid ( talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
These arguements are frequently raised, and should be mentioned in the article. Ragazz ( talk) 05:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
"Activist judges" were a major reason given by the Prop 8 camp, as well as president at the time GWB against the ruling.
Furthermore, the judicial branch over-stepping its authority is NOT a partisan Liberal/Conservative issue (Alberto Gonzales, etc).
Critisism of the court's desicion should be included in this article as per WP:CONTROVERSY Ragazz ( talk) 05:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong about GWB. I distictly remember him using the talking point "Activst judges in California" over and over. Furthermore, Yes on 8 commercials constantly repeated the phrase "activist judges." It WAS a major component of the campaign, as illustrated by its inclusion on the Yes on 8 website. And the argument does apply to California because a mojority DID NOT favor same-sex marriage, as illustrated by the Prop 8 election results. Ragazz ( talk) 18:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on In re Marriage Cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
With bated breath, the 4,000 defiant of the law, and many other are too excited and would mob City Hall on June 16, unless, the USA S. Court stays: Note that the CA ruling is 4-3 or a split decision. Hence, anything goes on June 16: In a one-page Resolution, the California Supreme Court on June 4, 2008 forthwith denied all petitions for rehearing and to reconsider the May 15 ruling, as it removed the final obstacle to same-sex marriages starting on June 17. It further rejected moves to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November election, when voters will decide whether to reinstate a ban on same-sex nuptials. Chief Justice Ronald George and Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno, voted for the resolution, while dissenting or voting to reconsider the judgment, were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan. chicagotribune.com, Calif. court refuses to stall gay marriageThe judgment stated: “The decision filed on May 15, 2008, will become final on June 16, 2008, at 5 p.m.” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that marriages would be held “5:01” on June 16. nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriages latimes.com, California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage Moreover, a field poll in late May, reported that "51% of registered voters in the state favored the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 42 percent opposed.". nytimes.com, Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriages-- Florentino floro ( talk) 09:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The ruling is based on the CA Constitution and therefore cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Agnosticaphid ( talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
These arguements are frequently raised, and should be mentioned in the article. Ragazz ( talk) 05:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
"Activist judges" were a major reason given by the Prop 8 camp, as well as president at the time GWB against the ruling.
Furthermore, the judicial branch over-stepping its authority is NOT a partisan Liberal/Conservative issue (Alberto Gonzales, etc).
Critisism of the court's desicion should be included in this article as per WP:CONTROVERSY Ragazz ( talk) 05:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong about GWB. I distictly remember him using the talking point "Activst judges in California" over and over. Furthermore, Yes on 8 commercials constantly repeated the phrase "activist judges." It WAS a major component of the campaign, as illustrated by its inclusion on the Yes on 8 website. And the argument does apply to California because a mojority DID NOT favor same-sex marriage, as illustrated by the Prop 8 election results. Ragazz ( talk) 18:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on In re Marriage Cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)