California high court upholds gay marriage ban

[DEDixon 39]

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.

So you don't needlessly feel bad, I'm delighted to let you know that gay couples in California can get all the benefits of marriage simply by registering as domestic partners.

[scandal 951]

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.

There is one significant benefit which married couples have in this country to which civil unions are not entitled - namely, immigration benefits.

K-1, K-3, CR1/IR1 apply ONLY to married couples. I'm surprised no one here mentioned this. This is VJ after all.

Unfortunately, even when states (VT, IA, etc.) legalize same-sex marriage within their jurisdictions that still has no bearing on USCIS. We'll need Congressional recognition for same-sex immigration benefits for that to happen.

Regarding the CA Prop 8 decision today - I'm pretty sure it will face a SCOTUS challenge under 14th amendment, equal protection.

For the record, I did my bit for the gheys, I was still a registered CA voter last November and voted No on 8.

Edited May 26, 2009 by uscandual

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

There is one significant benefit which married couples have in this country to which civil unions are not entitled - namely, immigration benefits.

K-1, K-3, CR1/IR1 apply ONLY to married couples. I'm surprised no one here mentioned this. This is VJ after all.

Unfortunately, even when states (VT, IA, etc.) legalize same-sex marriage within their jurisdictions that still has no bearing on USCIS. We'll need Congressional recognition for same-sex immigration benefits for that to happen.

Regarding the CA Prop 8 decision today - I'm pretty sure it will face a SCOTUS challenge under 14th amendment, equal protection.

For the record, I did my bit for the gheys, I was still a registered CA voter last November and voted No on 8.

It will be a good step forward, the day when gay couples can immigrate.

[The_Dude 1,142]

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.

There is one significant benefit which married couples have in this country to which civil unions are not entitled - namely, immigration benefits.

K-1, K-3, CR1/IR1 apply ONLY to married couples. I'm surprised no one here mentioned this. This is VJ after all.

Unfortunately, even when states (VT, IA, etc.) legalize same-sex marriage within their jurisdictions that still has no bearing on USCIS. We'll need Congressional recognition for same-sex immigration benefits for that to happen.

Regarding the CA Prop 8 decision today - I'm pretty sure it will face a SCOTUS challenge under 14th amendment, equal protection.

For the record, I did my bit for the gheys, I was still a registered CA voter last November and voted No on 8.

That is if the SCOTUS will even agree to hear that case. It wouldn't surprise me if they declined, given the social and political climate today.

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

That is if the SCOTUS will even agree to hear that case. It wouldn't surprise me if they declined, given the social and political climate today.

...this is the kind of issue the Supreme Court is suppose to look at though - protecting the rights of a minority from the majority.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

That is if the SCOTUS will even agree to hear that case. It wouldn't surprise me if they declined, given the social and political climate today.

...this is the kind of issue the Supreme Court is suppose to look at though - protecting the rights of a minority from the majority.

They are supposed to look at issues where there is reason to believe the cases have been decided wrongly by lower courts.

////////////////////////

Steven, check this out: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/2...t-in-government

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

Steven, check this out: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/2...t-in-government

"Fourth Branch is now King in California. 50%+1 rules. It is an experiment in governance that has never been tried before in the United States. And it isn't working."

Very interesting. I hope DEDixon, Dalegg, Bill and other Californians read this.

[scandal 951]

That is if the SCOTUS will even agree to hear that case. It wouldn't surprise me if they declined, given the social and political climate today.

...this is the kind of issue the Supreme Court is suppose to look at though - protecting the rights of a minority from the majority.

They are supposed to look at issues where there is reason to believe the cases have been decided wrongly by lower courts.

Agreed. They have every right to decide for themselves which cases they will review. Each year they get over 10,000 cases on the docket, of which less than 100 are reviewed.

Whether a challenge to today's Prop8 ruling will in fact be heard is anyone's guess. But I'm pretty sure it will get appealed to that level and be brought for consideration by the federal Court. There's a pretty compelling Equal Protection case to be made, I think.

As I understand it, the CA Court decision today could be seen as correct in interpreting the CA constitution, and the right of voters to amend their own constitution as they see fit. But the US Constitution supersedes any state constitution or law. If the CA Constitution, as currently amended by Prop 8, is found to violate the US Constitution 14th amendment, then the Federal court could reverse today's decision. I'm not a lawyer, that's just my understanding of the process.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Steven, check this out: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/2...t-in-government

"Fourth Branch is now King in California. 50%+1 rules. It is an experiment in governance that has never been tried before in the United States. And it isn't working."

Very interesting. I hope DEDixon, Dalegg, Bill and other Californians read this.

It's a blog! It holds no more credibility than anyone, myself included, posting on this, or any other forum. Besides, they all write like BY and Steve

Edited May 27, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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.

They were wrong the first time and eating crow this time. Not the first time that's happened to a court. I'm glad they didn't interfere with the gays who were already "married".

[DEDixon 39]

I think there will definitely be a day for gay marriage in California.

What gets to me is the cry baby mentality in all of this and the drama of what I read on here today: "I feel bad for all those who's lives are affected by these decisions." It is as if a member of the family is on life support. It is only marriage... more than 1/2 of first marriages fail in the USA and around 66% of all second marriages fail so what's the big deal and what is the rush? Marriage has been on the decline for the last 40 years yet these people are crying that they can't be apart of a "FAILED" institution (not a complete failure, but definitely a failure).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think there will definitely be a day for gay marriage in California.

What gets to me is the cry baby mentality in all of this and the drama of what I read on here today: "I feel bad for all those who's lives are affected by these decisions." It is as if a member of the family is on life support. It is only marriage... more than 1/2 of first marriages fail in the USA and around 66% of all second marriages fail so what's the big deal and what is the rush? Marriage has been on the decline for the last 40 years yet these people are crying that they can't be apart of a "FAILED" institution (not a complete failure, but definitely a failure).

Yeah but if you take the concept for granted - its easy to say.

[Danno 1,228]

Well let's see, I predicted both that Obama would choose a female Hispanic for conformation and I said

That Homos marriage would go down in flames in this case.

I figured they would throw a bone to the gays by letting those married.. remain so..... legally.

With all Stevens intellectual gymnastics on this subject he never could get to "step two" which apparently the Justices did.

"If we over rule this limit on marriage, none will stand."

Democracy is a blunt tool

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Well let's see, I predicted both that Obama would choose a female Hispanic for conformation and I said

That Homos marriage would go down in flames in this case.

I figured they would throw a bone to the gays by letting those married.. remain so..... legally.

With all Stevens intellectual gymnastics on this subject he never could get to "step two" which apparently the Justices did.

"If we over rule this limit on marriage, none will stand."

Democracy is a blunt tool

Are you psychic?

[scandal 951]

Well let's see, I predicted both that Obama would choose a female Hispanic for conformation and I said

That Homos marriage would go down in flames in this case.

I figured they would throw a bone to the gays by letting those married.. remain so..... legally.

With all Stevens intellectual gymnastics on this subject he never could get to "step two" which apparently the Justices did.

"If we over rule this limit on marriage, none will stand."

Democracy is a blunt tool

Are you psychic?

Clairvoyant. There's a difference.