California bans gay marriage

[Ytts]

Apparently my prediction last week came true, having only seen from some passing headline that California would be considering  it.


For the Americans out there, was this a shocker? I had thought that California voting in that way ran against common expectations.

[Crysta]

This is what happens when I leave the state. 

[Inquisitor]

Apparently my prediction last week came true, having only seen from some passing headline that California would be considering  it.


For the Americans out there, was this a shocker? I had thought that California voting in that way ran against common expectations.

California is a rather big state - the people in the cities usually vote Democratic and liberal, while those outlying the cities are your usual more rural, country-ish folks who focus more on religious ideals and values, which means they come out in droves to vote on such things as "the sanctity of marriage". There was a big problem with people fighting over the "YES/NO ON PROP 8" signs and I think one kid was shot, so, no, I'm not too surprised. Disappointed, but not surprised.

[Xachariah]

California is the only state with a city that I've actually HEARD OF being full of gay guys. This surprises and amuses me.

[Ytts]

It's really quite unfortunate to see gay rights being dealt such a setback.

In terms of what will be happening with Columbia in an entirely cynical consideration, is that tourism will once again start going up. We get a lot of "marriage tourists," as it were.

[Xachariah]

Go there, get married, leave?

[Ytts]

Yes.

[Dalton]

Looks like rights in California are finally equal. All people, regardless of orientation, are entitled to marry a person of the opposite gender. 

[Soja]

I was very surprised, considering it's California.

It's an amendment, so it's now part of California's constitution. Matrimonial unions that had already taken place are, to my memory, not affected by this, but it does bar any more ceremonies from taking place.

Far as I know, though, civil unions aren't barred. The biggie with marriage is that its status is to be recognized across state lines where as civil unions are not obliged to be acknowledged outside of its originating area.

But I think most of the fighting is over the rhetoric of it all.

[Ytts]

The benefits derived from marriage in Canada was only recently given to gay couples. Prior to this, heterosexual couples enjoyed a massive amount of legal and financial benefits gay people could not receive.

As such it amounted (here) to discrimination. Same-sex marriage was increasingly permitted across many provinces until eventually the federal government caught up and legalized it across the country.

So, I would not say that the definition of "marriage," is merely rhetoric, because the legal definition of a term is very important when it comes to one's legal rights.*  I do not know whether civil unions in California (and across America) enjoy all the same benefits that couples who are married do, but if the rights are not exactly equal then it does indeed become a case of discrimination.




* (consider what would happen if we were to redefine the legal definition of "person," and what the result would be with one's right to vote, among everything else)

[Ball-o-Cheese]

It's an amendment, so it's now part of California's constitution. Matrimonial unions that had already taken place are, to my memory, not affected by this, but it does bar any more ceremonies from taking place.

People still seem to be debating this, so its not clear. The AG has said that it won't be retroactive, but thats not a decider. Its probably going to stay murky until someone actually challenges one of those existing marriages legally, and then a court will have to hammer it out. Thankfully the CA courts have been in the right place on this.

Far as I know, though, civil unions aren't barred. The biggie with marriage is that its status is to be recognized across state lines where as civil unions are not obliged to be acknowledged outside of its originating area.

Civil Unions are a second-class status even if you stay in California, and they have significant gaps compared to marriage. Marriage benefits are fairly universal and standardized, but if you have a Civil Union and move to another state, there might not be any corresponding status or it might have radically different terms.

Of course, even getting state recognition is only part of the battle, the DOMA is going to have to be overturned before the federal government will recognize same-sex marriages (ie, for immigration, taxes, SS, etc.) Thank a lot, Bill.

[Ytts]

How much of a chance does the American court system have of taking down the restrictions on marraige? Our government was practically forced to legalize it by a vast number of judges in near-simultaneous court decisions across the country, despite political parties trying to legislate the definition of marriage in 1999 as strictly between a man and a woman.

I'm pretty sure even the federal bill to legalize gay marriage was written by a judge.

[Ball-o-Cheese]

I expect the CA supreme court to knock Prop 8 down in the next year or so, because its the same court that gave same-sex couples the right to marry in the first place. The problem is that until something is done on a FEDERAL level, same-sex marriages are never going to be equal. I don't know what the chances are of the SCOTUS knocking this wall down, but people are probably leery about bringing a case and having it go the wrong way; having the SCOTUS rule that bans were ok would be a huge setback, so they're going to want to find the right case and drive that up the courts.

I wouldn't be hopeful.

[Gyrit]

I saw that and just went "Poor Sulu." Can't really say it shocks me, but the "Sanctity of Marriage" bit makes me chuckle. This crap from a country with drive-thru chapels.

[Mikail]

SCOTUS

Totally misread that word while skimming.

[Xachariah]

I expect the CA supreme court to knock Prop 8 down in the next year or so, because its the same court that gave same-sex couples the right to marry in the first place. The problem is that until something is done on a FEDERAL level, same-sex marriages are never going to be equal. I don't know what the chances are of the SCROTUM knocking this wall down, but people are probably leery about bringing a case and having it go the wrong way; having the SCROTUM rule that bans were ok would be a huge setback, so they're going to want to find the right case and drive that up the courts.

I wouldn't be hopeful.

Like that?

[Ramidel]

I expect the CA supreme court to knock Prop 8 down in the next year or so, because its the same court that gave same-sex couples the right to marry in the first place. The problem is that until something is done on a FEDERAL level, same-sex marriages are never going to be equal. I don't know what the chances are of the SCOTUS knocking this wall down, but people are probably leery about bringing a case and having it go the wrong way; having the SCOTUS rule that bans were ok would be a huge setback, so they're going to want to find the right case and drive that up the courts.

I wouldn't be hopeful.

The Supreme Court at present is controlled by conservatives who -know- that the written word of the Constitution doesn't matter, and a few liberals who know the same thing (but to different ends).

That said, the Cal Supreme Court really can't shoot down a CA constitutional amendment. (Okay, theoretically, they might. I very much doubt that the California Supreme Court can pull that off; they're not THE Supreme Court and they'd get slapped down hard by THE Supreme Court if they did that.)

[Ytts]

That said, the Cal Supreme Court really can't shoot down a CA constitutional amendment. (Okay, theoretically, they might. I very much doubt that the California Supreme Court can pull that off; they're not THE Supreme Court and they'd get slapped down hard by THE Supreme Court if they did that.)

Our own provincial governments are actually capable of disregarding our bill of rights, which is at the federal level. Is there (seriously, out of curiosity) some reason why the supreme court of the state is not permitted to rule on the constitution of their own state? That to me seems like saying that individual state supreme courts are not, in fact, the supreme authority in regards to their own state.

[Ramidel]

The thing is, the Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the word of the California Constitution.

The California Constitution just said, point blank, "marriage is one man and one woman."

So are they interpreting that to mean something other than what was explicitly voted into law?

[Faelen]

I haven't been following this very in depth. Personally, if the rest of us can screw up our lives by getting married, why can't gay people?

[Gyrit]

Because it's like totally gross.

[Ramidel]

No. Because the majority of Christians believe that God Said So, and freedom non-establishment of religion is irrelevant to what their version of God has commanded.

[Ball-o-Cheese]

The thing is, the Supreme Court is in charge of interpreting the word of the California Constitution.

The California Constitution just said, point blank, "marriage is one man and one woman."

So are they interpreting that to mean something other than what was explicitly voted into law?

The Prop 8 people wrote their amendment before the court had issued its full ruling, because they were really eager to get the ball rolling. They jumped the gun, and the result is that the Prop 8 language doesn't actually address all the aspects of the May ruling. In May, the California Supreme Court ruled:
1) That same-sex couples had the right to marry and
2) That prohibiting them was a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the California Constitution.

Prop 8 anticipated the first one, and successfully dismisses that. It did not anticipate the second part, and it does not address it. This means that the California Constitution is fundamentally in conflict with itself; its wording now prevents it from recognizing same-sex marriages, but recognizing some-but-not-all marriages is gender-based discrimination that has been deemed unconstitutional. One way or another, the constitution has to be put back into accordance with itself.

This can be done by:
1) Having the court rule that the Prop 8 amendment alters the 'Equal Protection' clause, and is therefore a revision and not an amendment, and must be re-passed as such (as a not, its not likely to make it through the more difficult procedure of a Constitutional Revision)
2) The court ruling that Prop.8 is valid, and that California cannot recognize a same-sex marriage - but that in order to preserve the Equal Protection, this means that California cannot recognise any marriage - it has to deny them all.
3) Deciding that Prop 8 effectively amends the EPC as well (I seriously don't see this, first of all because it would involve reading MUCH more into the amendment than is there, and secondly because it wold involve the court actually back-tracking on their previous ruling)

Option 2 is not very likely at all, but its what I am personally hoping for; it would be great for the court to say 'Ok, you refuse to give these people their fundamental rights, but you're not allowed to single out a group like this - so everyone is losing this right. Now you can all enjoy civil partnerships until you decide to stop being a bunch of dicks'

Its possible that having the CA court rule on this would get it pushed up to the SCOTUS, but in that case it wouldn't actually be a matter of gay marriage - it would be an issue of harmonizing the CA constitution.  I actually have no idea whether the SCOTUS would want to get involved with that, and if they have any precedent for doing so.

[Rook]

[Dalton]

Thought you could slip this past me Rook? I deciphered your wicked plot.