California high court upholds gay marriage ban

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Referendums are stupid.

I think they serve a purpose, but there has to be checks and balances. This ruling appears to imply that a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution trumps existing law.

...and then above and beyond this ruling, this may now go all the the way to the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Referendums are stupid.

I think they serve a purpose, but there has to be checks and balances. This ruling appears to imply that a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution trumps existing law.

...and then above and beyond this ruling, this may now go all the the way to the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

and why would that be a bad thing my brother?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Referendums are stupid.

I think they serve a purpose, but there has to be checks and balances. This ruling appears to imply that a ballot initiative to amend the Constitution trumps existing law.

...and then above and beyond this ruling, this may now go all the the way to the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

and why would that be a bad thing my brother?

I'm a bit concerned that with the current bench, they may decide that they should not interfere with a state's constitution. Justice Scalia seems to side with that idea.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

Sounds good to me.

The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed.

....

It's still unclear how the CA Supreme Court will resolve the two decisions.

It just did.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

Sounds good to me.

The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed.

....

It's still unclear how the CA Supreme Court will resolve the two decisions.

It just did.

Not necessarily. I had read some comments from one the most conservative judges on the court, who said if they uphold the amendment, they will then have to rule that the term 'marriage' be struck from all law. I'll see if I can find it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/2...p-8-to-the-bone.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/2...p-8-to-the-bone.

Very interesting. That's what I was looking for....how the court resolved this decision with its previous ruling.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship."

very interesting...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

...and by officially recognized family relationship - I would take that to mean that they can use titles such as Mr. and Mrs. or any other variation, as well the labels of husband and wife.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Talking to yourself is very gay, Steven.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Talking to yourself is very gay, Steven.

Only if you say "...my precious" at the end of every sentence.

[dalegg 143]

I think that was probably inevitable. I have to say, I feel bad for all those who's lives are affected by these decisions. It's must be a very emotionally difficult thing to deal with.

I'm still having a hard time understanding how anyone's lives were actually affected by this. As far as I can see in California Domestic Partnerships seem to be exactly the same thing as marriages as far as legal purposes are concerned. I just got through filling out Child Support papers for example and all over it were options for selecting "Married" or "Domestic Partners" and they seemed to be the same thing.

Is all this really just over the word "Married"? Come on people if thats all it is just call yourselves married and be done with it. I know gay couples in California who had ceremonies 20 years ago with all of their friends present- pictures, dancing, cake, the whole nine yards. Obviously gay marriage wasn't official 20 years ago in California, but since that date they referred to themselves as married and so did all of their friends. The one is covered equally on the others insurance just as a wife would be. So what it the big deal here? If you and your friends already refer to yourselves as "married" and you receive the same benifits as "married" people, why is it so important that the State call you married? The only thing I can think of is that you want people who don't want to call you married to be forced to. Changing it at the State level has no affect on the Federal level, right?

And if I'm wrong about the rights, I cannot think of an easier issue to solve. The state legislature is on board with equal rights, the Governor is on board with it, so whatever isn't exactly equal with marriages and domestic partnerships- make it so. I guarantee you will get less resistance to closing those loopholes than changing the traditional definition of marriage.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think that was probably inevitable. I have to say, I feel bad for all those who's lives are affected by these decisions. It's must be a very emotionally difficult thing to deal with.

I'm still having a hard time understanding how anyone's lives were actually affected by this. As far as I can see in California Domestic Partnerships seem to be exactly the same thing as marriages as far as legal purposes are concerned. I just got through filling out Child Support papers for example and all over it were options for selecting "Married" or "Domestic Partners" and they seemed to be the same thing.

Is all this really just over the word "Married"? Come on people if thats all it is just call yourselves married and be done with it. I know gay couples in California who had ceremonies 20 years ago with all of their friends present- pictures, dancing, cake, the whole nine yards. Obviously gay marriage wasn't official 20 years ago in California, but since that date they referred to themselves as married and so did all of their friends. The one is covered equally on the others insurance just as a wife would be. So what it the big deal here? If you and your friends already refer to yourselves as "married" and you receive the same benifits as "married" people, why is it so important that the State call you married? The only thing I can think of is that you want people who don't want to call you married to be forced to. Changing it at the State level has no affect on the Federal level, right?

And if I'm wrong about the rights, I cannot think of an easier issue to solve. The state legislature is on board with equal rights, the Governor is on board with it, so whatever isn't exactly equal with marriages and domestic partnerships- make it so. I guarantee you will get less resistance to closing those loopholes than changing the traditional definition of marriage.

It was my understanding ...at least before reading that link AJ posted, that the right of marriage had exclusive rights that other couples did not have. I'll have to see if I can find out, but if I understand what this ruling means, is that the court has now made it clear that homosexual couples are to be afforded the exact same privileges as heterosexual couples....which is a good thing.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think that was probably inevitable. I have to say, I feel bad for all those who's lives are affected by these decisions. It's must be a very emotionally difficult thing to deal with.

I'm still having a hard time understanding how anyone's lives were actually affected by this. As far as I can see in California Domestic Partnerships seem to be exactly the same thing as marriages as far as legal purposes are concerned. I just got through filling out Child Support papers for example and all over it were options for selecting "Married" or "Domestic Partners" and they seemed to be the same thing.

Is all this really just over the word "Married"? Come on people if thats all it is just call yourselves married and be done with it. I know gay couples in California who had ceremonies 20 years ago with all of their friends present- pictures, dancing, cake, the whole nine yards. Obviously gay marriage wasn't official 20 years ago in California, but since that date they referred to themselves as married and so did all of their friends. The one is covered equally on the others insurance just as a wife would be. So what it the big deal here? If you and your friends already refer to yourselves as "married" and you receive the same benifits as "married" people, why is it so important that the State call you married? The only thing I can think of is that you want people who don't want to call you married to be forced to. Changing it at the State level has no affect on the Federal level, right?

And if I'm wrong about the rights, I cannot think of an easier issue to solve. The state legislature is on board with equal rights, the Governor is on board with it, so whatever isn't exactly equal with marriages and domestic partnerships- make it so. I guarantee you will get less resistance to closing those loopholes than changing the traditional definition of marriage.

It was my understanding ...at least before reading that link AJ posted, that the right of marriage had exclusive rights that other couples did not have. I'll have to see if I can find out, but if I understand what this ruling means, is that the court has now made it clear that homosexual couples are to be afforded the exact same privileges as heterosexual couples....which is a good thing.

The only real difference, is that they can't go to county offices (city hall in San Francisco City/County) and get a marriage license. Those 18,000 marriages recorded between the first court decision and the effective date of Prop 8 are still legal marriages.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think that was probably inevitable. I have to say, I feel bad for all those who's lives are affected by these decisions. It's must be a very emotionally difficult thing to deal with.

I'm still having a hard time understanding how anyone's lives were actually affected by this. As far as I can see in California Domestic Partnerships seem to be exactly the same thing as marriages as far as legal purposes are concerned. I just got through filling out Child Support papers for example and all over it were options for selecting "Married" or "Domestic Partners" and they seemed to be the same thing.

Is all this really just over the word "Married"? Come on people if thats all it is just call yourselves married and be done with it. I know gay couples in California who had ceremonies 20 years ago with all of their friends present- pictures, dancing, cake, the whole nine yards. Obviously gay marriage wasn't official 20 years ago in California, but since that date they referred to themselves as married and so did all of their friends. The one is covered equally on the others insurance just as a wife would be. So what it the big deal here? If you and your friends already refer to yourselves as "married" and you receive the same benifits as "married" people, why is it so important that the State call you married? The only thing I can think of is that you want people who don't want to call you married to be forced to. Changing it at the State level has no affect on the Federal level, right?

And if I'm wrong about the rights, I cannot think of an easier issue to solve. The state legislature is on board with equal rights, the Governor is on board with it, so whatever isn't exactly equal with marriages and domestic partnerships- make it so. I guarantee you will get less resistance to closing those loopholes than changing the traditional definition of marriage.

It was my understanding ...at least before reading that link AJ posted, that the right of marriage had exclusive rights that other couples did not have. I'll have to see if I can find out, but if I understand what this ruling means, is that the court has now made it clear that homosexual couples are to be afforded the exact same privileges as heterosexual couples....which is a good thing.

The only real difference, is that they can't go to county offices (city hall in San Francisco City/County) and get a marriage license. Those 18,000 marriages recorded between the first court decision and the effective date of Prop 8 are still legal marriages.

That's what is not clear to me because according that lawyer from AJ's link, gay couples can have their relationships officially recognized, which means they would be granted some legal document. So if that is correct...here's one more thing that the state now has to spend money on...creating a new, unique document that officially recognizes gay unions.