Prop 8 upheld by Supreme Court

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-12-2009
Prop 8 upheld by Supreme Court
701
Tue, 05-26-2009 - 8:49pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-decision27-2009may27,0,6677891.story



Prop. 8 upheld by California Supreme Court


Sit-in


Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times

Engaged couple Robert Franco, right, and Shawn Higgins kiss as San Francisco police line up to arrest anti-Proposition 8 demonstrators.

The justices uphold the same-sex marriage ban but also rule that the 18,000 gay couples who wed before the November vote will stay married. The decision is sure to spark another ballot box fight.

By Maura Dolan
11:44 AM PDT, May 26, 2009


Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court today upheld Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage but also ruled that gay couples who wed before the election will continue to be married under state law.

The decision virtually ensures another fight at the ballot box over marriage rights for gays. Gay rights activists say they may ask voters to repeal the marriage ban as early as next year, and opponents have pledged to fight any such effort. Proposition 8 passed with 52% of the vote.


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:11pm
Thanks...I will take that as you couldn't find that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:12pm

WOW... excellent point. I never even considered that.

I know of a couple "kissing cousins"... A very dear friend of mine fell in love with his cousin. And they didn't know they were cousins until deep into their relationship. It is unfortunate, because he still thinks about her.

09siggy med

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2009
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:12pm

I just wanted to pop in and let you know that your arguments are completely understandable, and very compelling to those of us who can think logically.


Seriously?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2009
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:13pm

Take what you want of it...


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:17pm

>>>Whatever works for you! You are a waste of my time!

It's such a waste that it HAD to be written, right?

09siggy med

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:22pm

I think your logic has frustrated the libs so much that it's become impossible to have a respectful debate.... don't worry, happens to me all the time.

:o)

09siggy med

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:23pm
YUP

09siggy med

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:29pm

Uggg....

Since when is a picture of an aborted fetus, a picture of a "cute" baby?????

Just because the fetus is 1-2 inches long, head to rump (lets all keep in mind that this does not include it's legs), doesn't mean that when it's tiny little limbs are torn apart that they are not recognizable.

I once posted a picture of my ultrasound here.... It was commented that it was an ultrasound of an older fetus.... NO, it was at 10wks of pregnancy. It was very clear, his legs, arms, hands, head.

09siggy med

 


 


 


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-26-2009
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:40pm
This is the part where the left usually goes silent.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-10-2006
Tue, 06-02-2009 - 11:48pm
Get out your magnifying glasses!

Here is Kenneth at 7 weeks, 6 days of gestation:

10 wks ultrasound croped

approx 1.2 inches from head to rump in this photo

09siggy med

 


 


 


Pages