California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[lahabra1976]

Surpised haven't seen this topic yet, my understanding is gay marriage is legal in California now. Will this mean other states will soon follow?

Here is the link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

And will CA see an influx of tgirl and gay couples?

[lumberjack]

California is a more liberal state, doesn't mean other states will follow. I think eventually this will be put to the ballot, let the voters decide, not the courts. As far as gays &t girls moving here because, well they're here already, attitudes are more relaxed towards alternate lifestyles.

My solution to this whole mess is to allow cival unions recognized by state. Marriage would only be recognized by religion. If a couple marries in church, allow the marriage to be considered a cival union. You can still respect the rights of the religious, that feel homosexuality is wrong and will not allow same sex marriages in their congregation.

[justatransgirl]

Hurray!

Yes the CA Supreme Court upheld same sex marriage in California! The law was appealed to a lower court which ruled against it, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court.

Because this is a State law, this is the end of the line. Marriage will again be legal.

HOWEVER - there is a initiative on the general ballot for November to define marraige as ONLY between a man and woman. So it's REALLY important for us to all get behind the push to block the religious extremists who are beind this upcoming HATE legislation.

We won a battle, but the WAR is just beginning.

And Jessica and I will be getting married sometime before November and you will ALL be invited to the party! As to whether our marriage (or any others) will be allowed to stand may become a political battle.

Hugs,
TS Jamie :-)

[yodajazz]

Oh no! Not the “lest put another gay marriage issue on the ballot”. Just in time for the November election, to bring out the conservative base. And while you’re at it, drop in a vote for McCain. They have pulled it here in Ohio for two elections, 2002, and “it’s already banned, so lets ban it again” in 2004. Meanwhile Ohio put GWB over the top in the Electoral College giving him a second term in office. Plus they will press Obama on it, and say that he is out of touch with mainstream values. Plus ‘activist judges’ is a Republican rally issue, which is supported by their religious base. You will hear big time television ministers all over the country playing it up. It’s also a good issue to take attention away from them being investigated, regarding their finances.

I say that it’s a conspiracy. A sex issue gave them the White House in 2000. The Monica Lewinsky affair, neutrality the Democratic success of unparalled prosperity along with a balanced budget. Gay Marriage issues in 9 states helped them in 2004. California will help to keep attention on the issue nationally.

[justatransgirl]

You will hear big time television ministers all over the country playing it up. It’s also a good issue to take attention away from them being investigated, regarding their finances.
.

Ministers being investigate for "finances?" Heaven forbid. :-)

Did you forget about all the high profile sex scandles involving clergy? Not to mention pedophile priests. Yeah, gotta stop that gay marriage thing. Next thing you know dogs and cat will be insisting on their rights too!

Giggle,
TS Jamie :-)

[lahabra1976]

Will I think the gay community will write all sorts of letters to make sure that ballot doesn't get passed through or Arnold may even veto it. Not sure if it will even reach the floor. But overall I confident that it won't go through. There are much bigger issues for us to deal with than gay marriage. Just let people, gay or straight, get married and be done with it I say. It won't hurt the economy or hurt no one. Now lower house prices, increased unemployment, that is where the politicans should be focusing.

[lahabra1976]

But that is gonig to suck if some people get married only to see it revoked later!!! Marriages cost a pretty penny.

[justatransgirl]

No LaHabra, I think you might have misunderstood. This upcoming vote to once again ban gay marriage in CA - after the CA Supreme Court has now set aside the previous voter ban - this vote coming up in November is an "initiative" on the general ballot for the people to decide. 50% plus one vote rules.

I guess it would effect a state constitutional change, not sure. But the important distinction is it is separate from the legislature or Governors office. Whatever the majority of the voters say becomes the new law. It cannot be vetoed.

Though a subsequent law put through the state legislature could possibly then again set aside the initiative - but would be political suicided for many congressmen so would be unlikely to happen in the visible future.

This whole thing promises to be a vicious circle for awhile to come. The religious extremists are very vocal, highly organized and with virtually unlimited financing and media access.

In the local news coverage I saw of the court decision 90% was devoted to ministers saying how wrong it was and detailing the efforts and expense they are willing to go through to stop equality in this country and to continue to spread their messages of hate and intolerance in the name of religion.

What really amazes me is that so many people are so interested and willing to go to such lengths to control what happens in my bedroom between myself and the person I love.

Maybe it's time to leave religion and hate behind and do away with marriage entirely as a legal structure.

Sigh,
TS Jamie :-)

[hippifried]

But that is gonig to suck if some people get married only to see it revoked later!!! Marriages cost a pretty penny.
Well that's a whole other legal connundrum. You can't do ex post facto. Not even as a State Constitutional Amendment. All State Constitutions have to jive with the US Constitution. That would include the bans on ex post facto laws & bills of attainder, & you certainly can't negate the equal protection clause. It says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I don't see anything in there that says "except for same sex marriage or unless the State of California just wants to be a botheration to detesticled transexuals in San Diego".

Anyway: It just seems to me that without the ability to make law retroactive, anyone who marries between now & November would still be married even if a new initiative passes.

Oh well... No matter what, the lawyers still get rich.

[justatransgirl]

Yes Hippi, I'd agree. However I believe the marriages performed in San Francisco prior to the original ban which the SC just set aside were in fact invalidated.

But as I read it at the moment, as you said, anyone married before a new law took effect would be married still. UNLESS, they rewrite the law to make it retroactive, which is very likely.

However, I also have hopes that the people of CA are progressive enough to stand up and take a step forward into the 21st Century and the progression of mankind.

Hugs,
TS Jamie :-)

[justatransgirl]

What does this have to do with trannies?

Because at least two "trannies" on this site plan to get married. And it's as much a trans issue as a gay issue - since the law sees a man and a "trannie" as two males - which therefore means a same sex marriage. Please refer to the "am I gay" thread...

PS: Some trannies don't like to be called trannies, unless it's another tranny doing the name calling. It's sort of like that N thing...

Giggle,
TS Jamie :-)

[hippifried]

Yes Hippi, I'd agree. However I believe the marriages performed in San Francisco prior to the original ban which the SC just set aside were in fact invalidated.

But as I read it at the moment, as you said, anyone married before a new law took effect would be married still. UNLESS, they rewrite the law to make it retroactive, which is very likely.

However, I also have hopes that the people of CA are progressive enough to stand up and take a step forward into the 21st Century and the progression of mankind.

Hugs,
TS Jamie :-)
I believe the problem in San Francisco was that the licences were never state sanctioned & the city, as a subordinate entity, could not usurp jurisdiction over the licencing authority. (I hope that made sense) But this ruling targets the state licencing authority itself, saying the state can no longer discriminate on accout of sex.

Retroactive = ex post facto. From Article I section 10 of the US Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
By mythological definition, marriage is a forever thing & the oath is "till death do us part". It's a lifetime contract, & the licence seals the deal. There's no "king's X" in law. What scares the hell out of the phobes, is that a legally married same sex couple will move to another state with an anti-gay law & find a reason to demand that their marriage be accepted. That's how DOMA will get challenged in the SCOTUS, on the grounds of both the clause above & Article IV section 1 aka the Full Faith and Credit clause. DOMA is such bad law, shaky at best, that it's almost certain to get shot down by the Supremes, & Justice Scalia will be pulling the trigger.

I don't know how much I'd be willing to count on the people of California being progressive or knowing what century it is. Wasn't the law that just got overturned passed as an initiative or referendum? It's going to be up to the LGBT community to outorganize the religious right. That's a tall order, & everybody's going to have to be on their best behavior & civil to a fault. All tempers in check, & no kind of lying or anything else that can be exploited. These people have their own media networks, a huge following, & extremely deep pockets. The only way to beat them politically is to make sure they're the ones who come off looking like the zany extremist fanatics. They'll hang themselves if everybody just stays calm & feeds them enough rope.

I'm thinking that the only way to stop the State of California from issuing marriage licences during the interum between now & November is to appeal the ruling to the 9th circuit & have them issue an injunction. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to how that would pan out, but if I was a Fred Phelps type wacko with cash to burn, that's the way I'd go immediately. Y'all better prepare for this. They have enough lawyers at their disposal that they have to be aware of all the contingencies that I've just rattled off.

Good luck. Looks like the day might be getting closer.

[onthefence]

any you still can't file your taxes as a married couple. can't wait to see that get to the supreme court.

[hippifried]

any you still can't file your taxes as a married couple. can't wait to see that get to the supreme court.
There's that. There's also spousal communication privelege, community property, joint tenancy, parental rights, inheritance, & so forth. Then there's this whole "next of kin" thing. When you marry, you claim your spouse as your "next of kin". Everybody else, including parents siblings & offspring, gets once removed. It's that status which gives a spouse sole decision making power when the other partner is incapacitated. The signed licence creates that legal status. It's a tacit consent to give power of attorney to someone with no blood relation.

This is what the CASC just addressed. It said the state cannot create a specific set of priveleges & immunities for couples & then deny them to some because somebody doesn't like their choice of partner. The court said pretty clearly that this isn't the State's decision to make, regardless of whether it's made administratively, through legislation, or by popular vote. Chalk one more up clear thinking.