Gay Marriage Ban Upheld by California Supreme Court

14 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  Sisyphus on May 26 at 12:48 p.m.

  No surprise. Still digesting. It appears the court ‘married’ their opinions to hold that gays still have equal rights by being allowed those rights through civil unions. They determined that Prop H8 was merely semantic. Gays can’t call themselves married. Seems petty and stigmatizing.

• 

  JeanieSpokane on May 26 at 1:09 p.m.

  Ditto, Sis. Petty!

• 

  LukeB on May 26 at 1:14 p.m.

  Not surprised - the court pretty much interpreted the CA constitution as written.

  Expect further initiatives/propositions to change the CA constitution again. Prop 8 barely passed - within a couple years it will be voted out as swiftly as it was voted in.

  The old, intolerant guard is dying out nationwide and it will be only a matter of time before equal rights are established.

• 

  OrangeTV on May 26 at 1:30 p.m.

  It irritates the living piss out of me, to be perfectly blunt.

• 

  spokelooneh on May 26 at 1:37 p.m.

  “It appears the court ‘married’ their opinions to hold that gays still have equal rights by being allowed those rights through civil unions.”

  Exactly.

  It appears to me the court went out of it’s way to say same-sex couples have ALL the rights of opposite sex couples, EXCEPT they can’t use the term “marriage”.

  From the Court’s opinion:

  “The Attorney General’s contention is flawed, however, in part because, like petitioners’ claims, it rests inaccurately upon an overstatement of the effect of Proposition 8 on both the fundamental constitutional right of privacy guaranteed by article I, section 1, and on the due process and equal protection guarantees of article I, section 7.

  As explained below, Proposition 8 does not abrogate any of these state constitutional rights, but instead carves out a narrow exception applicable only to access to the designation of the term “marriage,” but not to any other of “the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage …” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 781), such as the right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one’s choice and to raise children within that family.”

  http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S168047.PDF

• 

  scootermom on May 26 at 1:40 p.m.

  John and Kate Plus 8? Pray for them and their numerous spawn.

  John and Nate? Not worthy of equality.

  Does anyone else see the irony?

• 

  Sisyphus on May 26 at 1:52 p.m.

  Irony is important to a healthy diet. I have two or three double entendres with coffee in the morning, a trope for lunch, and a healthy dose of John Stewart after dinner. ;-)

• 

  Digger on May 26 at 2:51 p.m.

  At what point does our country scrap the whole “marriage” thing and start handing out civil unions to any two consenting adults regardless of gender? Leave the “marriage” label to the church to sanction - but in the eyes of the state its all the same union.

  Before this delves into a discussion about “where does it stop?” and “what about polygamy” or “what if a man wants to marry his dog” lets just stop that right now. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone in the GLBT movement who wants equal rights for marriage to condone equal rights for anything but 1+1

  As Luke said the old intolerants are dying off and we’ll eventually have equal rights for all. If everyone modeled Washington’s domestic partnership statute we’d all be better off.

• 

  Aliasjax on May 26 at 3:00 p.m.

  I’m with Digger…almost. I agree that state sanctioned “marriage” is archaic, but I’d go further to say that the entire idea of state licensing of marriage and/or civil unions needs to be scrapped. It’s offensive to me that I need the permission of the state do either - and that state/public/private benefits accrue to those so licensed.

  Also, I have no problem with consenting adults arranging their lives any way they want, which would include polygamist constructions - I draw the line at unions between/among humans and other animals, however.

• 

  Collingwood on May 26 at 3:03 p.m.

  I haven’t been this torn (on a subject, anyway) since I was given a free camera to take pictures at my ugly friend’s wedding.

• 

  toadman on May 26 at 3:07 p.m.

  It’s just a matter of time until the US grows up and realizes that marriage is between the heart and mind of two people in love, and not tied to the government in any way but legally.

  This is a setback, sure, but one that time will heal as, as Digger says, “all those ole intolerants” die off. So, if you’re old, intolerant, and hate gay’s getting married in your state, please eat as much red meat and saturated fats as you can get your hands on, ok?

  ;-)

• 

  Truly on May 26 at 3:27 p.m.

  The Toadman says it perfectly! Right on my friend:)

• 

  Sisyphus on May 26 at 3:41 p.m.

  It most certainly isn’t archaic. Its one of the most significant events that bonds people in our society. And from that our laws on taxes, property succession, adoption, health care and, of course, divorce are based upon a person’s marital status. There are even rules of evidence peculiar to married people. There are pressing public policy concerns for government to be involved in this process and to assure that the status is what it is meant to be, a solemn sober commitment between two people. You’re just kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

  I recognize that there is a distinction between that and the sacrament of marriage recognized in churches. The debate can go to that forum and determine it under their own rules which don’t always recognize treating all people fairly. I don’t care since I can opt out. But the LDS and Catholic faiths are the ones bringing the fight to the public arena in California not the other way round.

• 

  spokelooneh on May 26 at 8:18 p.m.

  IN the legal world, it seldom gets more bizarre than this:

  “Bush vs. Gore rivals challenge Prop. 8 in federal court
  5:29 PM | May 26, 2009

  Two prominent attorneys who argued on opposite sides of Bush vs. Gore, the legal battle over the 2000 presidential election, announced Tuesday that they will challenge Proposition 8 in federal court and seek to restore gay marriage until the case is decided.

  Former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies, who represented then-Vice President Al Gore in the contested election, have joined forces to tackle the same-sex marriage issue, which has deeply divided Californians and left 18,000 gay couples married last year in legal isolation.

  In a project of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Olson and Boies have united to represent two same-sex couples filing suit after being denied marriage licenses because of Proposition 8.

  Their suit, to be filed in U.S. District Court in California, calls for an injunction against the proposition, allowing immediate reinstatement of marriage rights for same-sex couples.
  …”

  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/bush-v-gore-rivals-challenge-prop-8-in-federal-court.html

  Ted Olson arguing FOR same sex marriage? Has hell frozen over?

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic