Reader comments · US: Justice denies latest attempt to halt same-sex marriage in California · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US: Justice denies latest attempt to halt same-sex marriage in California

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jun 2013, 7:04pm

    So pleased this has been denied. I hope that’ll remain so too.

    It’s just unacceptable for the opponents to continue their barage of hate and discrimination just because they didn’t get what they wanted.

    Even the religious must start to see decency for what it is and stop promoting their need for control.

  2. For the homophobes it’s an “outrageous act (that) tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness” when rulings even by the Supreme Court is not in their favour.

    Suck on it!

    1. They’ve clearly given up. No lawyer would accuse the Supreme Court of “outright corruption” if they seriously expected them to reconsider the case. They’re now at the stage where stamping their foot, pouting and shouting “won’t! won’t! won’t!” is all they’ve got.

      However I genuinely interested in the Pungo, the Prop 8 proponents’ lead counsel. Is he just a lawyer who is willing argue any case for money? Or does he genuinely believe in it?

  3. Terry Eastham 30 Jun 2013, 7:12pm

    Can’t these bloody people realise when they have lost their bigotted arguments and just retire in good grace, rather than demonstrate their mean spiritidness to the entire world?

  4. Really. Can’t these people find someone else to hate or are we all they have left in the way of minorities they can bully and hurt.

    Or even better they could try doing some f*****g good instead. Help the old and poor lead better lives might be so much more rewarding than hounding us so relentlessly.

    I never thought I could hate and pity at the same time but I read the crap that these haters spew and I just think WTF is wrong with you.

  5. Just as a side note to the article, Justice Kennedy was the swing vote in the DOMA ruling. In the Prop 8 ruling he argued the proponents should have standing but was outvoted 5-4, so he was denied the opportunity to rule on the merits of the case.

    In a way his decision here in light of his previous opinion on the case makes it even more bittersweet!

  6. Good! I just read a challenge had been launched again against California Equal Marriage on the BBC web site, it is nice to come here to PN and read it has already been rejected “Without comment!” by Justice Kennedy.

    People in California didn’t deserve to go from feeling elated to “exasperated” in the same week!

  7. Mumbo Jumbo 30 Jun 2013, 8:03pm

    “….without comment….”

    Speaks volumes.

  8. Thank heavens for the liberal justices and justice Kennedy.

  9. GingerlyColors 30 Jun 2013, 9:24pm

    Proposition 8 is dead and buried and even if it got put to a referendum now (even though human rights should not be subjected to a public vote) gay marriages will be approved by a small majority of the voters. It is almost five years since Prop8 got passed and support for gay marriage throughout the US has grown since then as opinion polls have consistantly shown

  10. The Christian Right behave like Hitler’s Brownshirts – they are a disgrace to humanity and should all be sectioned (certified).

  11. That There Other David 1 Jul 2013, 12:00am

    In a way I hope they bring a new Proposition attempt in, and have it go 75% or higher against them. Even then they’ll blame all the other voters rather than just admitting they’re the ones in the wrong, but at least they won’t be able to claim that the judges struck down the will of the people.

  12. Mihangel apYrs 1 Jul 2013, 10:37am

    one would have thought that accusing judges of being “corrupt” would be contempt of court or at least slander, even in the first Amendment USA

    1. Contempt of court means doing something that obstructs a court’s work (such as inappropriate behaviour in the courtroom or disobeying a court order), not just criticising a judge. I believe US defamation law strongly protects criticism of public officials, but I would guess that it would be difficult for a judge in the UK to successfully sue someone for describing them as “corrupt” (which can just mean “immoral” – it doesn’t necessarily imply a crime has been committed).

  13. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Jul 2013, 12:10pm

    It’s done, over with, get over it religious loons and other demented freaks on the loony right. Not even their lead lawyer would put his name to this latest escapade knowing it would fail.

    1. I am glad you said loony right. Jesus himself was considered a leftist and if he decided to visit one of these American fundy churches, he would be expelled quickly. A foreign born person of colour with long hair, no job and homeless—are you serious! In a heartbeat, he’d be shown the door!

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 1 Jul 2013, 2:37pm

        Indeed, Darren. I’ve no doubt in my mind we’ll be hearing the same nonsense once our own Marriage Bill passes in a few weeks. Already, that other loon, Tory MP Peter Bone is calling for a referendum a year after the law passes and its being backed by some in the Lords. That’s why its important to lobby them. I managed to contact 371 in a ten day span and received some great responses by many. It’s important they hear from us.

  14. The article is missing a little bit of context – apparently this last-minute appeal was plainly frivolous and nobody would have expected the court to do anything with it. There is nothing significant about it being Kennedy who rejected the claim – some responsibilities are divided between the justices based on which part of the country a case came from, and Kennedy’s territory happens to cover California.

    1. I wouldn’t say it was frivolous but having been found to not have standing to appeal, it would have been surprising if they had been allowed extra time to basically… appeal that decision. The parties who would be able to appeal, I.e. the elected representatives, were the ones who asked the appeals court to wave its 25-day wait period.

  15. I find this scary. These anti equality people are tenacious. I feel that we will never be able to sleep deeply.
    Stay equally tenacious!!

  16. How exactly is this “lawless?” The case has been appealed up to the United States Supreme Court.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.