May 152008
The California Supreme Court overturned the statutory ban on same-sex marriage. (Large PDF of the opinion here.)
The forces of evil will be right back at it, though. Today we party elegantly–tomorrow back in the trenches.
Edit: Lynn points out that all three branches of government are in agreement on this. Take that, pseudo-originalist whinebots!
mythago
11 Responses to “And About Time”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I expect that they will now move to amend the CA Constitution, to which I say “Bring it!” At least they’ll be fighting the proper battle…
I don’t think they have a hope in hell of pulling off an amendment that also strikes down the Equal Protections Clause and getting it past a two thirds majority of both houses.
It’s a good day, even if it is too darn hot.
Oh, and I also assume that someone will eventually try to challenge DOMA and the Supremes will continue to dodge the issue.
In a way, I’m a little worried that this was ruled on during an election year — it’s going to fire up the fundie base and get them out to the polls this November to vote for McCain.
I think I’d like to rescind my “Bring it” comment… I was not aware that it was so appallingly easy to amend the CA Constitution. About the only plus I can see is that it seems like they would need to specifically amend the Equal Protection Clause to avoid creating yet another legal contradiction… I think.
Oops, left out the details… 8% to get an amendment on the ballot. Simple majority to pass. :(
What pantload decided simple majority was enough to amend a state Constitution?
Yes, the forces of evil, namely the gay “marriage” lobby, will never stop trying to subvert the democratic process via an activist judiciary. I suggest you read the CA constitution (or, more appropriately, have it read to you.) There is nothing therein that requires gay “marriage,” the liberal eisegesis of George and Moreno notwithstanding.
Unseelie, your stupidity is even more pronounced than that of the average gay “marriage” advocate. We already have the signatures for the amendment and it will be on the ballot in the fall. Prepare to be bitch-slapped back to the unlit corner where you belong.
Did you even read the decision Mr. O’Brien? It’s pretty darn clear. Equal rights can not be denied on gender under the equal protection clause. Marriage provides certain rights (ex. not needing to file a medical power of attorney in order for your spouse to make medical decisions for you). That is a right that is denied to same sex couples… which is, in fact unconstitutional under the current California Constitution.
I hope that the “sanctity of marriage” lobby is putting forth the correct legislation. It’s not enough to put a “no same sex marriage” amendment in, as that will create a constitutional conflict. You’ll need to amend the Equal Protection Clause to explicitly permit rights to be denied by gender… and I’m not sure you’ll get that past the electorate.
Bye, dude. People who disagree with the CA Supreme Court’s decision are welcome to do so here. People who are blogwhoring, or who don’t know anything about the decision but think “judicial activism” is a synonym for “failure of a court to rule my way”, aren’t.
If CA is like OH, that 50% to amend the Constitution is mostly intended to set initiatives above legislation so that a law isn’t passed by popular vote one day only to be rescinded by the legislature the next.
If a 3-tier system was desired (Consitution/Initiative/Legislature), no one in CA or OH politics seems to have petitioned to make the change.