Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

Rubbish! It is up to each citizen, the legislature AND the courts to adhere to the Constitution. It is pure laziness to pass it off to the courts.

The California supreme Court had no legal basis for keeping the measure off the ballot. Can you provide one?

If this were anti-miscegenation law instead would you say the same thing? I would hope not.

There are thousands of preachers who could have been chosen. Why this one? Politics doesn't trump what is right. .. or does it.

Nope... The constitution is there to protect the rights of the minorities and the Courts are there to make sure that happens.

Remember that democracy is the rule of the majority and the majority has spoken clearly on Nov 4th.

Inaugurals always begin with an incantation invocation. I think Billy Graham did it at least once. Let me see what I can find.

*Billy Graham did the inaugural prayer for '41 and both Clinton inaugurals, but was too sick to do '43 so his son did it.

I don't think anyone can possibly show that, for the simple reason that it's absolutely impossible to work together for anything that is "for the good of everyone". In a country as big and diverse as ours, nothing is "for the good of everyone".

Now let's get on the Wayback Machine here and see if we can recall another instance where Mr. Obama dared to appear with Pastor Rick, shall we? Let's remind ourselves of what Mr. Obama had to say on that occasion about Proposition 8:
Why, then, is there such an outrage about Obama picking his friend Pastor Rick, who refused to condemn Obama from the pulpit unlike so many of his fellow "men of the cloth", when Obama's own opposition to same-gender marriage should have been clear all along? Why wasn't the outrage directed at Obama when it counted? I would suggest that those who threw their whole-hearted support behind Obama in the election should instead examine their own hearts, and look at their own hypocrisy, or ignorance in the case of those who did not listen or were not listening when Obama made his position clear all those months ago.

Obama's supporters should have known what they were getting when they were out there campaigning for his election. They should have known they were getting a candidate whose own convictions would have led him to vote YES on Proposition 8.

Wow, lots to catch up on. Briefly:
1) California Supreme Court could not act prior to passage of Prop 8. Now they can, and will.
2) I don't like invocations at public events either, but it is traditional.
3) Rick Warren may be one of the most reasonable of the evangelicals and agrees with many of the other policies that Obama supports, including the environment, etc.
4) It is not, as Steve pointed out, inconsistent with Obama's views previously expressed.
5) I don't like "one issue" voters or campaigns, nor does the President-elect, so condemning Obama over one issue is inconsistent with his previously expressed message.
6) GLBT leaders can be upset and express that, and I kind of like Obama's response.
7) Obama is the first President to appoint an openly-gay individual to a top post. First openly LGBT person named to Obama's cabinet Which action is more important - appointing someone who will serve for years, or allowing someone to make a 2 minute invocation?

"Apparently" evangelical pastor Rick Warren, from Orange County, CA was the guy who helped evangelicals get over the "is he a Muslim" and showed them that Barack Obama is in deed a born-again Christian.

...sometimes these things are more than meets the eye.

Walking in other person's moccasins may give different views

Los Angeles Times

AG Brown also stated on KGO 810 a.m. San Francisco that the will of the People can not supercede the interpretations of the California constitution by the Supreme Court of California.

AG Brown stated that the Supreme Court HAD the final say in the matter last May and said the right to deny gays marriage had to be a compelling interest for the government to deny such marriages and that there is no compelling interest by the government from barring gays the right to marry.

The Court ruled on the Prop 22 statute in May 2008 and now the Court has to rule on an Admendment which does the same thing as the statute of Prop 22 passed in 2004 - which the Court struck down in May 2008 as I just stated.

AG Brown also stated that the California Supreme Court has the duty to protect individual rights.

Given these legal facts, it doesn't look good for the "Yes" side.