California's Supreme Court & Gay Marriage: ROUND 2

[slurper_la]

I hope they get it right this time...

hey hunk-o-love; didn't the court get it right the last time?


kiss me! we can play this game too!

 

[OCMuscleJock]

hey hunk-o-love; didn't the court get it right the last time?


kiss me! we can play this game too!

well they Allowed it to be overturned even tho its unconstitutional...so i'd say no. The Prop 8 vote shouldn't have been allowed to be voted on at all the way it was written. Just my opinion.

We went the legal route and covered all the important bases with the Living Trust...would be nice to have the title of marriage after 11yrs tho...

 

[faceking]

Agasp at why this is still wasting taxpayer dollars... can I get a libertarian in the house please?

 

[OCMuscleJock]

I guess you don't feel the same way about it mr faceking because...ummm *you're not gay* ... so none of this effects you like it does some of us. What would make this all really suck is if they said...ok ...the marriage title is religious and not constitutional...so EVERYONE that is married now has to apply for domestic partnerships ...the marriage title is a religious title and doesn't equally cover the rights of everyone. THEN...people would see what we feel. I don't think our parents would like to have to go back and apply for the right to legally be together and recognized by the courts as a "married" couple. HOWEVER, they would fight for that right. *well most of them....some would say, *screw this* and just be single again* hahahha

 

[Guy-jin]

Agasp at why this is still wasting taxpayer dollars... can I get a libertarian in the house please?

Ironically, gay marriage is one issue Libertarians by and large cannot agree with each other on.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

There's room for more in our cubbyhole, VB. :wink:

You definitely know how to make a guy pitch a tent in his pants, dude... :wink: :biggrin1:

 

[B_Nick8]

hey hunk-o-love; didn't the court get it right the last time?


kiss me! we can play this game too!

I'd say they did. They simply need to reiterate. :wink:

Gives slurper a big MWAH!

You definitely know how to make a guy pitch a tent in his pants, dude... :wink: :biggrin1:

You want I should strike that pole? :biggrin1:

 

[thadjock]

I hope they get it right this time...

u forgot to add "too" becuz they (supreme court) got it right the first time .

it was the christianist extremists who derailed the real will of the people and the courts. if u take the out of state mormons and their money out of the equation, prop 8 wouldn't have passed in the first place.

 

[B_RedDude]

I am not a lawyer, but as a political science major, it seems to me that if the California Supreme Court upholds BOTH the initiative AND the validity of the marriages contracted between June and November, that it would be creating "equal protection" problems in regard to those sex-same couples who did not marry in that window but would now like to do so.

Anyone care to respond?

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

California's Supreme Court is made up of six republicans and one democrat. Last May, in a 4-3 decision, they declared that denying marriage based on sexual orientation was against the California State Constitution.

Here's part of that ruling:

Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.



--------------------

a fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship (regardless of sexual orientation).


So, if the justices vote to uphold the people's-choice ban on gay marriage (Prop 8), isn't denying gay marriage still unconstitutional? They said, unequivocally, it WAS last May.

So how can you have, on the one hand, a people-imposed (by a slim 52% majority) ban on gay marriage.... and, on the other hand, have a still fresh judicial ruling that says denying gays the right to marry goes against the state constitution - that gays have "a fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship"? The people and the Court are at odds.

The majority of justices will have to vote against their own majority opinion if they uphold Prop 8.

 

[B_Nick8]

willtom: The majority of justices will have to vote against their own majority opinion...

Precisely.

 

[D_Rod Staffinbone]

word on the street is (and this is ONLY based on the demeanor of questions / responses of the justices yesterday) that it's likely that the EXISTING same-sex marriages performed in california will stand.

beyond that it's anyone's guess at this point.

 

[Guy-jin]

It seems like they're taking the baffling stance that the proposition system is used to keep the judicial branch in check. From what I'm gathering, they'd be willing to overturn the same law if the legislature had passed it, but because it was passed as a proposition, they won't?

That doesn't make any sense to me. The courts have historically protected minorities from majority votes that deny them civil liberties.

 

[kalipygian]

California's Supreme Court is made up of six republicans and one democrat. Last May, in a 4-3 decision, they declared that denying marriage based on sexual orientation was against the California State Constitution.

Here's part of that ruling:

Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.



--------------------

a fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship (regardless of sexual orientation).


So, if the justices vote to uphold the people's-choice ban on gay marriage (Prop 8), isn't denying gay marriage still unconstitutional? They said, unequivocally, it WAS last May.

So how can you have, on the one hand, a people-imposed (by a slim 52% majority) ban on gay marriage.... and, on the other hand, have a still fresh judicial ruling that says denying gays the right to marry goes against the state constitution - that gays have "a fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship"? The people and the Court are at odds.

The majority of justices will have to vote against their own majority opinion if they uphold Prop 8.

I had expected the case to be brought on that basis, the right to the equal protection of the law.

Here in Alaska a Superior court judge ruled in February '98 that a male couple had the right to marry, the discriminatory legislation the moral majority legislators had previously passed not withstanding to the contrary. He stayed his ruling to allow the state the opportunity to show compelling interest. A moral Majority state senator introduced and passed putting on the ballot a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (SJR42). A lawsuit (Bess V. Ulmer) was brought on the same basis as the California lawsuit, that it was a revision of the constitution, not an amendment. Here a revision would require a constitutional convention. The ruling went against us.

So, I presume the ACLU of California knows what is the best case to make there, and it is different from here.

I don't see how the court can possibly invalidate the 18,000 marriages that were conducted.

 

[OCDreamer69]

well they Allowed it to be overturned even tho its unconstitutional...so i'd say no. The Prop 8 vote shouldn't have been allowed to be voted on at all the way it was written. Just my opinion.

We went the legal route and covered all the important bases with the Living Trust...would be nice to have the title of marriage after 11yrs tho...

Same here OCMuscleJock, my partner and I have spent a lot of money going the legal route to protect ourselves and our property. Married couples don't have to do this. Plus I am taxed on the domestic partner portion of my medical insurance that married couples aren't taxed on.

My partner and I have been together for 24 years now........longer then a lot of the straight couples we know.

 

[OCMuscleJock]

u forgot to add "too" becuz they (supreme court) got it right the first time .

it was the christianist extremists who derailed the real will of the people and the courts. if u take the out of state mormons and their money out of the equation, prop 8 wouldn't have passed in the first place.

correct...

 

[OCMuscleJock]

Same here OCMuscleJock, my partner and I have spent a lot of money going the legal route to protect ourselves and our property. Married couples don't have to do this. Plus I am taxed on the domestic partner portion of my medical insurance that married couples aren't taxed on.

My partner and I have been together for 24 years now........longer then a lot of the straight couples we know.

congrats! yah it's not fair....

We have right to have fucked up marriages just like everyone else!

 

[thadjock]

congrats! yah it's not fair....

We have right to have fucked up marriages just like everyone else!

true.

though i have no reason to expect it, lets just hope the additional hurdles gay couples have had to go through to get married results in lower divorce rates among gay marriages than the >50% rate for str8's.

 

[thadjock]

and be grateful we live in cali, we're decades ahead of most states.

IL legislature just passed a civil union bill and there's a good chance even that will be shot down in protest. that is one fukd up state govt . though they do have that hot youngest US representative in history, but he's a republican, how can somebody so young and cute be so on the wrong side?

 

[OCMuscleJock]

and be grateful we live in cali, we're decades ahead of most states.

IL legislature just passed a civil union bill and there's a good chance even that will be shot down in protest. that is one fukd up state govt . though they do have that hot youngest US representative in history, but he's a republican, how can somebody so young and cute be so on the wrong side?

hahaha it's mind boggling!