Calif. Gay marriage on/off/on/off/on

[Gob]

US judge overturns California same-sex marriage ban

Repeal supporters celebrate after the ruling The judge found "California has no interest in discriminating" against gays and lesbians

A US federal judge has overturned California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

The judge found it unconstitutionally discriminated against same-sex couples who sought to wed.

The state measure, known as Proposition 8, was passed by voters in 2008. It banned same-sex marriage, although the state offered same-sex civil unions.

Backers of the ban had said they would appeal if it were overturned. It is likely to reach the US Supreme Court.

The measure was passed in a ballot referendum by a vote of 52% to 48%.

Currently, five states and Washington DC allow same-sex nuptials, though many states have enacted bans.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger quickly welcomed the ruling.

"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves," he said in a statement.

"At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10875094

[Andrew D]

When this gets to the Supreme Court, there is a good chance that it will be overturned, and California's enactment of bigotry will be upheld. That is one of the many reasons why it is crucial for America that the Republicans not be given control: We desperately need to turn a right-wing Supreme Court into at least a relatively good Supreme Court.

[Rick]

A Republican appointed judge is the judge that said it was unconstitutional...

[Andrew D]

I referred to the Supreme Court, not to a judge at (or near) the bottom of the federal-court hierarchy. Do you really think that the Supreme Court will not uphold California's bigoted ban on gay marriage?

[Rick]

2 things:

Thing 1: If there is nothing in the federal constitution that would preclude the State of California from voting against Gay Marriage why should it not find in favor?

Thing 2: Your comment about Californian voter bigotry (in this case, and at least to me) seems to reflect more on you than them.

What do Republicans vs Pick Your Favorite have anything in the world to do with this? Are you insinuating there are no gay republicans?

Many (at the very least I) consider California to be one of if not THE most liberal state in the union. Arkansas is led far and away by Democrats yet in a recent poll the overwhelming majority considered themselves conservative, I wouldn't think the state of California would respond the same.

Of course faced with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary I would recant...

[Gob]

Can I have a check here?

1)Calif govt, instead of passing laws, puts it to the people to vote on whether they want gay marriage or not.

2) People vote NO!

3) Gay's go to court, judge says "Yes you can marry".

4) Calif has to abide by Judge's decision.

5) Someone goes to a bigger and better court, and argues gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

6) Bigger court says, "No No No Calif, no gay marrying for you."

7) Calif gays cannot marry.

Ok, in the UK, govt of the day puts gay marriage on their agenda, passes laws, gays get married.

[Andrew D]

2 things:

Thing 1: If there is nothing in the federal constitution that would preclude the State of California from voting against Gay Marriage why should it not find in favor?

The principal issue is whether the Equal Protection of the U.S. Constitution invalidates California's anti-gay-marriage law. If it does, then there is "[some]thing in the federal constitution that [does] preclude the State of California from voting against Gay Marriage".

Thing 2: Your comment about Californian voter bigotry (in this case, and at least to me) seems to reflect more on you than them.

What do Republicans vs Pick Your Favorite have anything in the world to do with this? Are you insinuating there are no gay republicans?

Of course not. But check out the line-up in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the case that struck down Texas's law prohibiting persons of the same sex from engaging in intimate sexual conduct. The principal dissenters were Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, all appointed (and Rehnquist subsequently elevated) by Republican Presidents. Now we also have Roberts and Alito, both appointed by a Republican "President".

Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are the Justices most idolized by the Republican right. They are also the most likely to vote to uphold California's ban on gay marriage. (As usual, how Kennedy (also a Republican appointee) will vote is anyone's guess.)

As to bigotry, I simply see no other reason to vote against gay marriage. That bigotry can, of course, be dressed up as other things, but such cloaks do not change its essential nature. If, for example, one's religion requires one to oppose gay marriage, that means no more than that one's religion requires one to engage in bigotry. If one's cultural traditions require one to oppose gay marriage, that means no more than that one's cultural traditions require one to engage in bigotry. Etc.

At bottom, opposing gay marriage amounts to deciding that gay people should not enjoy the fundamental right enjoyed by straight people: The right to marry whom one wishes to marry.

(The claim that gay people do have the same right as straight people -- the right to marry a person of the opposite sex -- is hogwash. It is the same argument that was used to support bans on interracial marriage: Blacks have the same right as Whites -- the right to marry someone of their own race. The Supreme Court rejected that fatuous argument and upheld the right of interracial marriage (in a case titled, with beautiful irony, Loving v. State of Virginia). It should reject the same fatuous argument now.)

[dales]

Look for an appeal by the Prop 8 backers which will tie this up for years.

[Scooter]

Of course it will. But if the ruling is not stayed, it will mean that same-sex couples will be able to marry in the interim, and the more that happens, the less likely that Prop 8 will survive another run at the ballot box even if it is upheld by the SCOTUS. It probably would not have survived longer than 4-6 years in any case.

I don't share Andrew's pessimism about how this will play out at the SCOTUS. As he has noted, Kennedy is really the only wild card, and he sided with the majority in both Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, which were both about the same sorts of equal protection arguments being advanced against Prop 8. Granted, in both cases he had the cover of Justice O'Connor also voting with the majority (6-3 in both cases, IIRC). Whether he will have the courage to be the justice who casts the deciding vote to legalize same-sex marriage for the entire country is another matter; it will be interesting to see what manner of sophistry he will engage in to distinguish this cases from his previous votes if he takes the coward's way out.

[Guinevere]

Well said Andrew and Scooter. There is almost no way Prop 8 *should* be upheld, but I am very concerned that bigotry will win the day. I need to go back and read the decision, as well as Romer and Lawrence.

[Rick]

Scoot I don't think that marriages will be "honored" as such during the interim.

I "THOUGHT" I heard that on the news last night.

Of course I'm kinda hard of hearing...

[Scooter]

Walker delayed giving effect to his ruling until he could hear arguments on whether it should be stayed pending appeal. Not sure of all the possible routes that those opposed to his ruling could take if he decides against a stay, or how long marriages could go on in the meantime.

[Gob]

What happens if gays get married outside of the US, in a country which recognises gay marriage, is it null and void in the states?

[Scooter]

It depends. The federal Defence of Marriage Act precludes the federal gov't from recognizing same-sex marriage (eg. for taxation or immigration purposes). Some states have legalized same-sex marriage and so in those states SSM is recognized for purposes that fall under state jurisdiction. New York (and possibly others, haven't kept up recently) have not enacted legislation allowing SSM to be performed in the state, but do recognize SSMs performed in other jurisdictions where they are legal eg. if two New York residents travelled to Ontario to get married, their SSM would be recognized by the state of New York.

[Gob]

Cheers Scoot, that clarifies nicely.