bryant: (Default)
[personal profile] bryant
The California Supreme Court says gay marriage is legal. Next step: probably the US Supreme Court, plus there'll be a constitutional amendment ballot item in the November California election to alter their Constitution to restrict gay marriage again.

Still! Good!

Date: 2008-05-15 06:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] marphod.livejournal.com
I suspect the SCOTUS is going to deny certification of this one.

In reading the case, a lot is based on the State Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, rather than on federally protected rights. As such, the Court doesn't have standing to review.

Date: 2008-05-15 06:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tavella.livejournal.com
Yup, I can't imagine the Supremes will get involved, any more than they did in Massachusetts. This is classic state territory.

Date: 2008-05-15 07:18 pm (UTC)
dcltdw: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dcltdw
plus there'll be a constitutional amendment ballot item in the November California election to alter their Constitution to restrict gay marriage again

What's the CA process? MA's is rather lengthy, which (in my uninformed opinion) is why it succeeded: "look, it's been 2 years, and this is a total non-issue. Vote no."

Date: 2008-05-15 07:33 pm (UTC)
dcltdw: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dcltdw
Holeeeeeeeee crap. To me, that says that the side with the most money for scare tactics wins. Which, I think, favors the pro-ban people.
From: [identity profile] r-ness.livejournal.com
"The opinion is entirely based on claims under the California Constitution, and does not rely on federal constitutional claims. This seems that the U.S. Supreme Court cannot review this; and it also means that a state constitutional amendment -- which seems likely to be on the ballot this November -- could overturn the decision."

Date: 2008-05-15 10:10 pm (UTC)
dtm: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dtm
Note though that this decision goes further than just allowing gay marriage, and unless an amendment is worded extremely broadly the decision of the court that sexual orientation-based distinctions be viewed with strict scrutiny isn't going away. (that is, as part of the opinion today the court also said that for purposes of CA law, distinctions based on sexual orientation are to be viewed with as much default skepticism as distinctions based on gender or race)

Other than that, damn. California beat us, but we'll likely have a legislative solution soon.

Date: 2008-05-16 03:50 am (UTC)
ext_8707: Taken in front of Carnegie Hall (grumpy)
From: [identity profile] ronebofh.livejournal.com
It's hard to be hopeful when insanely dumb shit like this made the ballot and won.

Date: 2008-05-17 06:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eyelessgame.livejournal.com
With only very little snark, I can clear that up for you: nothing gets done in California government.

Date: 2008-05-17 06:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] eyelessgame.livejournal.com
What I'm curious about is what it takes to repeal an amendment to our state constitution, because this amendment is likely going to win, and marriage equality is only going to last for six months.

One might imagine it would require the same thing as writing the amendment in the first place, but Prop 13 guarantees things are never so simple as that...

October 2025

S M T W T F S
    1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627 28293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 25th, 2026 04:32 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios