California High Court "Overturns" Gay Marriage Ban

[Sketch Soland]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

 

Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Alaska Darin]

They finally got something right.

[PastaJoe]

If would be better if they also declared straight marriages to be unconstitutional and changed their status to "friends with benefits".

[Sketch Soland]

They finally got something right.

 

Agreed.

 

If would be better if they also declared straight marriages to be unconstitutional and changed their status to "friends with benefits".

 

Now that's funny.

[John Adams]

They finally got something right.

 

1 state down, 49 to go. This is such a stupid issue. Can we just let adults marry and move on to more pressing matters? The government wastes so much !@#$ing time on what people do with their crotches.

[ieatcrayonz]

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

 

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

 

There is nothing more dignified than an over the phone marriage proposal.

[Sketch Soland]

1 state down, 49 to go. This is such a stupid issue. Can we just let adults marry and move on to more pressing matters? The government wastes so much !@#$ing time on what people do with their crotches.

 

 

Couldn't agree more.

[Kelly the Dog]

Oh, terrific, now 13,688,119 real marriages in the south and midwest are completely ruined and meaningless.

[GG]

It is worth noting that when the marriage law was put to vote, Californians voted 61% for the ban.

[SD Jarhead]

What is this majority rule you speak of?

[Wacka]

A bunch of nuts on the State Supreme Court overturned an AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION that 61% of the state voted for. These propositions are amendments to the constitution. How can an amendment that was legally passed be declared unconstitutional?

They also did that to another proposition that denied non emergency benefits to illegals.

[GG]

A bunch of nuts on the State Supreme Court overturned an AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION that 61% of the state voted for. These propositions are amendments to the constitution. How can an amendment that was legally passed be declared unconstitutional?

They also did that to another proposition that denied non emergency benefits to illegals.

 

This was not a CA Constitutional amendment, but a separate law. That's why the SC of CA overturned it. Apparently the big battle will be in Nov whether the issue can be put on the ballot to change the CA Constitution.

[Wacka]

From the article :

"Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote."

 

Propositions in California are amendments to the state Constitution.

[Kelly the Dog]

From the article :

"Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote."

 

Propositions in California are amendments to the state Constitution.

The voters didn't vote on the 14 words, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," Those were put in after the fact.

 

I know it's Wiki but it seems pretty clear if I understand it right.

 

Statutory framework before and after Prop 22

 

Prior to 1977, California Civil Code section 4100 (predecessor to what is now codified at California Family Code section 300) defined marriage as: "a personal relation arising out of a civil context, to which consent of the parties making that contract is necessary."[1]

 

While related sections made references to gender, a state assembly committee that was debating adding gender-specific terms to this section in 1977 noted: "Under existing law it is not clear whether partners of the same sex can get married."[2] That year, the legislature amended the definition of marriage to remove any ambiguity.

 

When Prop 22 came before voters, section 300 defined marriage as:

 

a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. [3]

 

Even though the definition governing who may marry explicitly precluded contracting a same-sex marriage in California, a separate provision, section 308, governed recognition of marriages contracted elsewhere:

 

A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state. [4]

 

Advocates of Prop 22 described section 308 as a "loophole," apparently forcing California to recognize a same-sex marriage validly contracted in some other state.[5] After passage, Prop 22 added a new section, codified at section 308.5, that reads:

 

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. [6]

 

[edit] Disputes over Prop 22's effect

 

Central to many subsequent disputes over Prop 22's effect is a distinction between statutes enacted by the legislature and initiative statutes enacted directly by the electorate. The legislature is free to amend or rescind its own enactments, but voters must approve any attempt by the legislature to amend or repeal an initiative statute.[7]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Pr...n_22_%282000%29

[slothrop]

What is this majority rule you speak of?

 

yeah, a majority of (white) southerners want/ed slavery and segregation. Damned 14th Amendment and Brown v. Board of Education!

[John Adams]

A bunch of nuts on the State Supreme Court overturned an AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION that 61% of the state voted for. These propositions are amendments to the constitution. How can an amendment that was legally passed be declared unconstitutional?

They also did that to another proposition that denied non emergency benefits to illegals.

 

The news articles are all saying that the people like who who care about other's groins have a last resort: amend the constitution. And they are trying to get that on the November ballot.

 

This leads me to believe that the proposition is not a constitutional amendment that the California Supreme Court cannot review. In the 127(!) page decision, the CA Supreme Court didn't really debate (nor did the parties apparently even brief) whether the SC had authority to review the proposition, so the Court probably had authority to review the constitutionality of the proposition.

 

What's at issue here? The right of homosexual domestic partnerships or whatever to be called "marriages?" Too funny. Why would any hetero person give a !@#$ what people call their union? Call it marriage, partnership, or flibberdegibblit--so long as the couple gets equal rights of benefits, property transfer, etc. Marriage just makes the most sense since it's the word traditionally used.

 

Again, why is the government wasting time in people's underwear?

[John Adams]

What is this majority rule you speak of?

 

The enslavement of the minority to the majority is not necessarily right. (See, eg, slavery.) It just happens to be our system.

[Chilly]

The enslavement of the minority to the majority is not necessarily right. (See, eg, slavery.) It just happens to be our system.

 

Tocqueville anyone? lol

[John Adams]

Tocqueville anyone? lol

 

Indeed, but I know of no better system except supreme power invested in me. That's why we have such a nice system of checks and balances--so the "tyranny of the majority" as Tocqueville would call it, is at least harder to execute.

[ieatcrayonz]

Tocqueville anyone? lol

Is that some sort of homosexual celebration ritual? Go ahead if you must, but keep it on campus sonny.