.
Feedback

Prop 8 Appealed to U.S. Supreme Court

The appeal argues that individual states should be allowed to define marriage because the U.S. Constitution neither requires nor condemns gay marriage.


As promised, supporters of California's Proposition 8 appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court today to uphold the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.
  
The petition to the high court states that whether marriage should be redefined to include same-sex couples is "a profoundly important question" and "a matter of great debate in our nation."

  
The appeal argues that individual states should be allowed to define marriage because the U.S. Constitution neither requires nor condemns gay marriage.
  
"Rather, it leaves the definition of marriage in the hands of the people, to be resolved through the democratic process in each state," the petition asserts.
  
Proposition 8, enacted by state voters in 2008, provides that "only marriage between a man and woman is valid or recognized in California."
  
It has been declared unconstitutional by a federal trial judge and a federal appeals court in San Francisco, but the measure has been left in place and same-sex marriages have been blocked during the appeals process.
  
The petition for a hearing before the high court was filed by the initiative's sponsors and their committee, Protect Marriage.
  
The Supreme Court is expected to decide this fall whether to take up the case. If it decides to hear the appeal, its decision would be expected by the end of June 2013.
  
If the panel does not take up the appeal, then a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year striking down Proposition 8 would become the final decision in the case, and same-sex weddings could resume.
  
Gay and lesbian marriages were briefly legal in California for several months in 2008 until voters approved Proposition 8 in November of that year. During that time, 18,000 same-sex couples married, and the California Supreme Court has ruled that those marriages remain valid.
  
The federal court rulings have been made in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed in 2009 by two same-sex couples.

 

--Bay City News

 

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Half Moon Bay Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Cid May 17, 2013 at 06:14 pm
I enjoy an occasional Taco Bell, but in the same shopping center as Happy Taco with far better,Read More authentic LOCAL Mexican food! Nah! I do enjoy the Combo locations that have KFC & TACO BELL. (Face it, Americans like to have choices!). With no drive-through, perhaps it will be better than the average suburban stores along the El Camino. As for another chain restaurant in Half Moon Bay...What did you expect? Demographics will continue to dictate that we can still expect to keep our "Fast-Food-Free-Zone" between Linda Mar and HMB while "City Councils or Planning Departments in the Cities will attract them....for their tax base.
Dee May 15, 2013 at 08:07 pm
Seriously? Taco Bell? Next to New Leaf? How did this happen? Not happy about this addition and notRead More looking forward to seeing Taco Bell trash all over the place. Not sure about KFC ... we already have a fast food chicken place at Popeyes so we certainly don't need another. The high school students will probably frequent Taco Bell the most and keep it in business but I will not be going there that's for sure.
George Muteff May 15, 2013 at 06:52 pm
I'm not particularly thrilled with yet another big corporate fast food store in HMB. I'm not a realRead More Taco Bell fan either, but I have noticed that Taco Bell and KFC are one in the same at many locations. I'm wondering if that will be the case here. Will this store include KFC? Anyone know?
Misha Flores May 17, 2013 at 09:35 am
To be honest I would probably just let my dog run around without a leash anyway, except there's soRead More much darned poison oak around these hills. I don't want her to get contaminated and then I hug her and trouble ensues.
Anne Martin May 16, 2013 at 04:29 pm
I don't own a dog now but empathize with the dog owners who have been deprived of the right toRead More allow their dogs to run free in the national recreation area that we as taxpayers own. As a taxpayer, I want to know the rationale for this policy. If it is to protect horses from being frightened by dogs what is the basis for that? How many horses use the open space? It appears that dozens of people who have been able to enjoy walking with their dogs in the open space adjoining their neighborhood are now being grossly inconvenienced because some faceless bureaucrats are creating rules that may have no basis in reality.
pae May 13, 2013 at 03:00 pm
Most dogs and horses can get along fine, if they have the opportunity to be socialized to eachRead More other. If dogs never get to see horses, or vice versa, then there is a startle/fear response, and each will respond according to its temperament. Remove all opportunities for this socialization, as GGNRA wants to do, and there will be more problems. Apparently GGNRA has even ordered stable owners not to allow equestrians to bring their dogs to the stable any more, which is grossly unfair to all concerned. GGNRA just hates dogs, and their policies have been written accordingly. It is unfathomable that here on the Coastside, surrounded by miles of open space, there is no legal area except one small dog park, for dog owners to walk with their companions off leash. Horses, bicycles and people have full access, but dog owners very limited access, and no access for off leash exercising. Rancho territory is 6 1/2 square miles. Surely there is enough room for all recreation! It's our tax money, too, but we're being denied use of the space we own.