California Supreme Court strikes down ban on gay marriage

[Mr. Fed]

As of about 25 minutes ago.  THe California Supreme Court found that the state's voter-approved definition of marriage limiting it to one man and one woman was unconstitutional under the state constitution.  I've posted the entire opinion here.

[Brendan]

Very interesting (and laudable) decision.  Why is Moreno a former favorite of yours?

[Pyperkub]

About time this state got it right.  Yay California!

Fed, what are the odds on a new constitutional amendment petition and ballot measure, and could it have any effect should it pass?

[Mr. Fed]

Very interesting (and laudable) decision.  Why is Moreno a former favorite of yours?

He was a federal judge when I was a prosecutor.  He was fair, courteous, and impeccably prepared for every hearing.

[Mr. Fed]

About time this state got it right.  Yay California!

Fed, what are the odds on a new constitutional amendment petition and ballot measure, and could it have any effect should it pass?

The odds are quite high.  There's already one pending signature approval.  The prior ballot measure only amended the statute; this one would amend the state constitution, and wipe out this decision.  Regrettably I think it's likely that it will pass.  But I don't think social conservatives will be able to put the genie all the way back in the bottle.  Many, many people will get married before the ballot initiative passes.  (And the people of California could still pleasantly surprise me).

[Moliere]

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.

[Brendan]

Very interesting (and laudable) decision.  Why is Moreno a former favorite of yours?

He was a federal judge when I was a prosecutor.  He was fair, courteous, and impeccably prepared for every hearing.

Ah, sorry - I read your statement as "he is no longer a favorite of mine."  I getcha.

[leo8877]

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.

I agree.  I never understood what people stood to gain by being against same sex marriage.  I'm glad the courts voted this way.  I'll vote to uphold this if it's ever on the ballot in CA again.

[Geezer]

So... assuming CA now goes the expected route and the morons decide to monkey with the Constitution, is it possible that another suit can be brought and could the CA supreme court theoretically find that the CA constitution is in conflict with teh United States constitution?  What happens in that case (or if anything in a state constitution is found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?)

As an aside, it bugs me that anyone would think that it's appropriate to start inserting random, specific laws prohibiting individual actions into a state's basic legal framework.  Discrimination is illegal.  Get over it, and stop trying to ammend the supreme law of the land to say otherwise.  Constitutions are supposed to be the framework that protects freedoms -- not an unappealable end-around to deny them.

[Pyperkub]

So... assuming CA now goes the expected route and the morons decide to monkey with the Constitution, is it possible that another suit can be brought and could the CA supreme court theoretically find that the CA constitution is in conflict with teh United States constitution?  What happens in that case (or if anything in a state constitution is found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?)

As an aside, it bugs me that anyone would think that it's appropriate to start inserting random, specific laws prohibiting individual actions into a state's basic legal framework.  Discrimination is illegal.  Get over it, and stop trying to ammend the supreme law of the land to say otherwise.  Constitutions are supposed to be the framework that protects freedoms -- not an unappealable end-around to deny them.

California's constitution is practically an infinitely malleable document.  It is pathetically easy to amend.  The transition from state law to federal law in this case is a tricky one and the jump hasn't taken place yet with the Massachusetts marriages yet, AFAIK, though I would think the tradition (law?) of states abiding by marriages performed in other states may well land this question in the Federal realm, quite possibly in the realm of tax law.

[Pyperkub]

About time this state got it right.  Yay California!

Fed, what are the odds on a new constitutional amendment petition and ballot measure, and could it have any effect should it pass?

The odds are quite high.  There's already one pending signature approval.  The prior ballot measure only amended the statute; this one would amend the state constitution, and wipe out this decision.  Regrettably I think it's likely that it will pass.  But I don't think social conservatives will be able to put the genie all the way back in the bottle.  Many, many people will get married before the ballot initiative passes.  (And the people of California could still pleasantly surprise me).

That's what I figured, though as I recall it wasn't as big of a deal when the initial ballot measure was passed, and it might be tougher getting a new one passed in CA.

[Brendan]

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

[Mr. Fed]

So... assuming CA now goes the expected route and the morons decide to monkey with the Constitution, is it possible that another suit can be brought and could the CA supreme court theoretically find that the CA constitution is in conflict with teh United States constitution?  What happens in that case (or if anything in a state constitution is found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?)

Probably not.  Basing the decision of the United States Constitution would subject it to review by the United States Supreme Court.  Right now that court would probably overturn any such decision.  Caselaw does not currently support the proposition that the U.S. constitution prevents a ban on gay marriage.

There's a somewhat more complicated argument that could be made that by passing a ballot initiative to take away a state constitutional right that the California Supreme Court identified, the state is singling out and infringing on the rights of a particular group in violation of their equal protection clause rights.  THat argument would be based on a very problematical 1996 decision[/ur] striking down a Colorado ballot initiative which prevented localities from enacting gay rights measures.  It's complicated.  It's unlikely the current court would rule the same way.

[cheeba]

Discrimination is illegal. 

No it's not.

[Geezer]

Discrimination is illegal. 

No it's not.

Uh.. When it comes to public institutions, yes, it is.     Edit.. I think you are saying that discrimination based upon sexual preference is not codified into law.  I understand that.  But discrimination based on sex is, and I think an argument can be made that, by allowing me, as a man to marry a woman but not allowing a woman the same option, the state is advocating a sexually discriminatory position.

[leo8877]

Our Governator speaks:

(05-15) 11:30 PDT Sacramento, CA (AP) --

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.

The Republican governor issued a brief statement shortly after the court announced its decision Thursday.

The governor said, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."

He also reiterated his previously stated opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative proposed for the November ballot. That initiative would write a ban on same-sex unions into California's constitution.

Last month, Schwarzenegger told a gathering of gay Republicans that he would fight the initiative.

The governor has twice vetoed legislation that sought to legalize gay marriage, saying the issue should be decided by voters or the courts.

Schwarzenegger did not address the court's ruling in his address to a technology conference in Sacramento Thursday morning.

[hepcat]

Now if they'd just widen the definition of "spouse" I could marry this Monte Cristo sandwich that I'm in love with right now...

[ATB]

So... assuming CA now goes the expected route and the morons decide to monkey with the Constitution, is it possible that another suit can be brought and could the CA supreme court theoretically find that the CA constitution is in conflict with teh United States constitution?  What happens in that case (or if anything in a state constitution is found to be in conflict with the US Constitution?)

Probably not.  Basing the decision of the United States Constitution would subject it to review by the United States Supreme Court.  Right now that court would probably overturn any such decision.  Caselaw does not currently support the proposition that the U.S. constitution prevents a ban on gay marriage.

There's a somewhat more complicated argument that could be made that by passing a ballot initiative to take away a state constitutional right that the California Supreme Court identified, the state is singling out and infringing on the rights of a particular group in violation of their equal protection clause rights.  THat argument would be based on a very problematical 1996 decision[/ur] striking down a Colorado ballot initiative which prevented localities from enacting gay rights measures.  It's complicated.  It's unlikely the current court would rule the same way.

What a great post....but you know what? It all just clicked. Fed is actually an AI that has passed the turing test.

[gellar]

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

[Blackadar]

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

Agreed.  But *many* people think you're not "married" unless you're married in a Church.  They see the act of marriage as fundamentally a religious one, not a state one and cannot logically separate the two.

[Geezer]

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

With the exception of joint filing status, I believe you can accomplish most other issues via a preexisting power of attorney  and/or a living will, can't you?

 

[Pyperkub]

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

With the exception of joint filing status, I believe you can accomplish most other issues via a preexisting power of attorney  and/or a living will, can't you?

 

And forcing some citizens to do that and others not to is discrimination.  And contrary to what geezer thinks, there is an equal protection clause in CA which has been seen as prohibiting that.

[Geezer]

And forcing some citizens to do that and others not to is discrimination.  And contrary to what geezer thinks, there is an equal protection clause in CA which has been seen as prohibiting that.

   What does Geezer think again????

[gellar]

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

With the exception of joint filing status, I believe you can accomplish most other issues via a preexisting power of attorney  and/or a living will, can't you?

 

You can.  I just don't like that someone would have to just because of their sexual orientation.

gellar

[Geezer]

I like Kurth's comment on PH - really, the way this should all work is that everyone (straight or gay couples) should be registering as partners via some sort of civil union process.  That'd afford you joint tax status, ability to make medical decisions, shared parental responsibilities, etc, etc.  Then churches could feel free to marry or not marry whoever they like.  Take the civil benefits and divorce them from the religious ceremony.

That's always been my take on the subject.  It honestly baffles me that it's not the standard in today's times.

gellar

With the exception of joint filing status, I believe you can accomplish most other issues via a preexisting power of attorney  and/or a living will, can't you?

 

You can.  I just don't like that someone would have to just because of their sexual orientation.

gellar

Nor do I.  There's absolutely no practical reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry in the state sponsored sense.  My point was that we already have the facilities in the law to allow for it and as such, opposition isn't based on anything but prejudice or misplaced fear.  There's no *change* taking place except for that of a name, and seperate but equal as a concept was thrown out long ago.

[Gwar21]

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.

Eh, I dunno.  Racial stuff isn't condemned by the Bible (and yes, I know some people say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality either - the majority view says otherwise, though, so that's what I'm going with), so I think opposition on this issue will have a lot more staying power, unless the Bible becomes irrelevant in the next thirty years.

I agree.  I never understood what people stood to gain by being against same sex marriage.

It's mostly a religious issue.  In their minds, they're trying to prevent society from giving a "stamp of approval" to a Biblical sin.  I think they also fear that their children will be brainwashed to accept homosexuality as normal and non-sinful.  So, by fighting it, they gain favor with God by opposing something wicked, and they protect their children.

[Brendan]

People who oppose gay marriage today will look just as ridiculous as these people look today.

Eh, I dunno.  Racial stuff isn't condemned by the Bible (and yes, I know some people say the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality either - the majority view says otherwise, though, so that's what I'm going with), so I think opposition on this issue will have a lot more staying power, unless the Bible becomes irrelevant in the next thirty years.

Sadly, as is true of many of the ridiculous laws we've passed in this country, the bible was the source of a lot of the anti-miscegenation legislation.  The main biblical sources were Phinehas and the "curse of Ham", the latter of which was used until the late 70s by the Mormons to justify keeping anyone of "African descent" out of their priesthood.

[Pyperkub]

And forcing some citizens to do that and others not to is discrimination.  And contrary to what geezer thinks, there is an equal protection clause in CA which has been seen as prohibiting that.

   What does Geezer think again????

What the hell did I read??? ooops!

[Austin]

And forcing some citizens to do that and others not to is discrimination.  And contrary to what geezer thinks, there is an equal protection clause in CA which has been seen as prohibiting that.

   What does Geezer think again????

[PaulBot]

Glad I don't live in CA. I wouldn't want to be there when God strikes down the whole state for their immoral behavior.

The really important question is: how will this affect gasoline prices.

[Austin]

Glad I don't live in CA. I wouldn't want to be there when God strikes down the whole state for their immoral behavior.

Buy up all the ocean-front property in Arizona!

[naednek]

Our Governator speaks:

(05-15) 11:30 PDT Sacramento, CA (AP) --

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.

He lies.  He was at the GTC (Government Technology Convention) during that time, talking to me and about 500 other people in the room, and said nothing about the ruling during that time, in fact it was all about technology.

[Creepy_Smell]

Glad I don't live in CA. I wouldn't want to be there when God strikes down the whole state for their immoral behavior.

The really important question is: how will this affect gasoline prices.

Well, if CA was gone then more gas for the rest of us and refineries would have one less state to make special gas for. I'm all for it!

[Moliere]

Glad I don't live in CA. I wouldn't want to be there when God strikes down the whole state for their immoral behavior.

The really important question is: how will this affect gasoline prices.

Well, if CA was gone then more gas for the rest of us and refineries would have one less state to make special gas for. I'm all for it!

Except that CA accounts for 21 refineries.

[pr0ner]

Our Governator speaks:

(05-15) 11:30 PDT Sacramento, CA (AP) --

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is vowing to uphold the California Supreme Court's ruling striking down a state ban on gay marriage.

He lies.  He was at the GTC (Government Technology Convention) during that time, talking to me and about 500 other people in the room, and said nothing about the ruling during that time, in fact it was all about technology.

Did you read the whole presse release?  It says that he didn't address it during the GTC, in the last line!

[PaulBot]

Time to send the Daleks after the Governator.

Seek, Locate, Exterminate! Do not deviate!

[leo8877]

So all the local news is showing how this decision will stir up the religious right into a voting frenzy come November.  I can only hope that this will in turn mobilize the sane voters of CA to counter their votes at the polls.

[Ironrod]

Carpe diem: Ellen Degeneris is marrying Portia DeRossi. How can anybody be against that?

[Freezer-TPF-]

Huge win for Big Catering.  And for civil rights.

[gellar]

Carpe diem: Ellen Degeneris is marrying Portia DeRossi. How can anybody be against that?

I'm against it.  Portia can't do any better than Ellen Degeneris?  REALLY?

gellar