California Same-Sex Marriage Ban Upheld

[BurgundyNGold]

For what it's worth, the court probably ruled correctly, as based on law. Still, it probably goes against the wishes of a whole lot of folks out in Cali -- even if not the majority.

For now, at least, all those hypothetical animals fixing to get hitched to all those gamely California folk are safe, lol...

California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban

LOS ANGELES, May 26 -- The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional amendment Tuesday that bans same-sex marriage in the state.

The court said, however, that those couples who wed in the state under an earlier opinion from the court, will be considered married.

The 6-1 ruling comes after three months of deliberation and nearly a year after the court struck down state laws that similarly banned such marriages. Then, the court ruled that the laws were unconstitutional and that the unions were a "basic civil right." This time, factoring in a successful Nov. 4 ballot measure that defines marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" in the state's constitution, which trumps state laws, the court revealed its hesitancy to override the will of the people.

...


Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600363.html)

[akhhorus]

Agreed. The issue was the legality of Prop 8 in regards to the Cali constitution, and the Court said that it was--but the Court basically enshrined the rights of gay couples since they didn't void the existing marriages. This has to go Federal sooner or later(full faith and credit of other states' actions), this just moves that along.

[Shawnb555]

Kind of sketchy ground if the supreme court tries to get involved in this ever because licensing is a state right therefore they really have no constitutional grounds to hear a case involving marriage rights.

[akhhorus]

Kind of sketchy ground if the supreme court tries to get involved in this ever because licensing is a state right therefore they really have no constitutional grounds to hear a case involving marriage rights.

Yes, but if a gay couple gets married in one state, and moves to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriages, thats a federal issue. Technically, the 2nd state has to recognize the marriage(Article IV, Section 1), but they'll fight to not recognize it.

[Fathead]

Kind of sketchy ground if the supreme court tries to get involved in this ever because licensing is a state right therefore they really have no constitutional grounds to hear a case involving marriage rights.



Someone could bring a federal suit claiming that they are being denied liberty by a state.

[akhhorus]

Ted Olsen and David Boles(who represented the sides in Bush v Gore) have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Prop 8 on Equal protection/Due process grounds. This will end up in front of SCOTUS soon enough.

[RedskinsDave]

Ted Olsen and David Boles(who represented the sides in Bush v Gore) have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Prop 8 on Equal protection/Due process grounds. This will end up in front of SCOTUS soon enough.

They filed for or against?

[akhhorus]

They filed for or against?

If they're challenging it, it would be against, no? lol

[shally]

Agreed. The issue was the legality of Prop 8 in regards to the Cali constitution, and the Court said that it was--but the Court basically enshrined the rights of gay couples since they didn't void the existing marriages. This has to go Federal sooner or later(full faith and credit of other states' actions), this just moves that along.

i think they stood on their heads on this one.. existing marriages, OK.. but no new ones ?? lawyering at it's finest.. it should keep the pot boiling
until there is some kind of definitive ruling

[shally]

Yes, but if a gay couple gets married in one state, and moves to a state that doesn't recognize gay marriages, thats a federal issue. Technically, the 2nd state has to recognize the marriage(Article IV, Section 1), but they'll fight to not recognize it.

i would think that because a number of states already have gay marriage rights in existence, and because the SCOTUS has not already stepped in and voided them, that from a practical standpoint, this issue has ALREADY been decided under the equal protection /full faith clauses

[akhhorus]

i think they stood on their heads on this one.. existing marriages, OK.. but no new ones ?? lawyering at it's finest.. it should keep the pot boiling
until there is some kind of definitive ruling

Its the fair ruling. They're saying that Gay marriage is legal, but the vote on banning it was equally legal.

i would think that because a number of states already have gay marriage rights in existence, and because the SCOTUS has not already stepped in and voided them, that from a practical standpoint, this issue has ALREADY been decided under the equal protection /full faith clauses

No one's taken this to fed court yet because no one is sure what SCOTUS will do. If they follow the law, they have to allow the marriages.

[firehawk157]

If they allow same-sex marriages, they should allow polygamy.

[BurgundyNGold]

If they allow same-sex marriages, they should allow polygamy.
Seems reasonable but it can't happen. It screws up all the tax forms, lol.

[shally]

Its the fair ruling. They're saying that Gay marriage is legal, but the vote on banning it was equally legal.



No one's taken this to fed court yet because no one is sure what SCOTUS will do. If they follow the law, they have to allow the marriages.

...like, voting for it, before voting against it....lol

and sooner or later, this is too important an issue not to have the SCOTUS decide it..

[shally]

Seems reasonable but it can't happen. It screws up all the tax forms, lol.

heck with them.. i want my Cats declared "persons" so i can get dependent credits for them