Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court

[Sayonara]

If you read Judge Waite's majority opinion of the courts unanimous ruling it is quite interesting (REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES). I think this opinion could be easily used by judges today in attempting to understand the meaning of the word marriage at the time the opinion was written (1878).

Reynolds vs United States was brought up BY YOU in this thread about 16 posts ago and instantly shown to be irrelevant. Why have you just repeated it?

 

I think it would be a stretch to conclude that the judges hearing this case did not understand that the word husband related to men exclusively and the word wife related to woman exclusively.

Would it be a stretch to conclude that you didn't understand the word person has no gender?

 

The law refers to two different unions:

 

1) A union between A PERSON and their husband,

2) A union between A PERSON and their wife.

 

The gender of the PERSON in either union is not defined.

 

 

In any case, even if it were, the law would read as follows:

 

"Any man having a wife living or woman having a husband living [who marries another etc] shall commit bigamy".

 

Which is not in the slightest bit what you claim it to be.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think it would be a stretch to conclude that the judges hearing this case did not understand that the word husband related to men exclusively and the word wife related to woman exclusively.

 

Well, you might construe it as excluding transvestites but even that would be a stretch. Again though, you are just assuming that the gender of the person is male when he has a wife and female when he has a husband, even though the law does not suggest that, and then concluding that it excludes the person from being a male with a husband or a female with a wife. Methinks you are confusing yourself.

[waitforufo]

ParanoiA, thank you.

 

Sayonara³, calm that bulging vain. Remember, I support gay marriage.

 

A common person understand of the law is still important in determining intent. I don't think any common person in 1878 would have interpreted the law I mentioned the way you have.

 

Also I mention just one aspect of the Reynolds decision. It is an important case dealing with marriage. For example the Judge Waite states that religious opinions on marriage are irrelevant to marriage law. For example Judge Waite states

 

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

 

So in other words a person is free to believe what they want about marriage but they still have to follow the law.

 

One could also say you can make up your own definitions about words but those new definitions don't change the meaning of law.

 

Anyway I do think the case could have impact on gay marriage.

[Mr Skeptic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy_law#United_States

 

Is my interpretation correct, from the map there, that before 1970 all states had laws against sodomy (which wiki defines as vaguely defined sexual acts that do not lead to procreation, not just limited to anal sex)? In which case, I think waitforufo has a point about how the law was likely intended. On the other hand, the map also says which direction we're headed currently.

[waitforufo]

Part of "due process" in the US requires that laws be written so that a person of common intelligence can understand them.

 

Now you tell me, if you ask a person of common intelligence what kind of person has a wife? Will they not say husband? If you ask a person of common intelligence what kind of person has a husband? Will they not say wife?

 

Based on this common law understanding of the words husband and wife, doesn't the following law define legal marriage as between one husband and one wife at least in US Territories?

 

Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.

 

Sect. 5352 of the Revised Statutes

 

Is there really any confusion here?

[Sayonara]

A common person understand of the law is still important in determining intent. I don't think any common person in 1878 would have interpreted the law I mentioned the way you have.

However, you were taking that "common person's understanding of the law" and saying that it has legal merit. It does not.

 

Now you tell me, if you ask a person of common intelligence what kind of person has a wife? Will they not say husband? If you ask a person of common intelligence what kind of person has a husband? Will they not say wife?

Firstly, that has nothing to do with intelligence. Their first answer will be mostly determined by the breadth of their cultural background. Secondly, it will still have no legal merit.

 

Based on this common law understanding of the words husband and wife, doesn't the following law define legal marriage as between one husband and one wife at least in US Territories?

No. It defines bigamy, and only bigamy.

 

Is there really any confusion here?

None whatsoever. You're completely wrong.

[ParanoiA]

Firstly, that has nothing to do with intelligence. Their first answer will be mostly determined by the breadth of their cultural background. Secondly, it will still have no legal merit.

 

Firstly, it DOES have to do with intelligence because he's talking about "due process" in the US and it is a requirement, albeit subjective, that laws be written so a common man of common intelligence can understand them. That's why waitforufo is phrasing the questions within that context. That's the framework of his post.

 

It's really more of a guideline since there's no objective way to distinguish when a law has failed this requirement.

 

Now you tell me, if you ask a person of common intelligence what kind of person has a wife? Will they not say husband? If you ask a person of common intelligence what kind of person has a husband? Will they not say wife?

 

I don't think so. I think it will roughly be a 50/50 split depending on who you ask and what area of the country. If you asked me either of those questions, I would respond by answering "wife or husband" to both questions. I may be wrong, but that's my guess.

 

Based on this common law understanding of the words husband and wife, doesn't the following law define legal marriage as between one husband and one wife at least in US Territories?

 

Hmm, I think you're definitely right that your questions above would have been answered such that supports the definition of marriage between a man and woman and therefore would support the implications of this law as well. But in a modern context, I don't believe those questions above would be answered that way, as I posted. So, with that in mind, I don't agree that this law clears anything up at all.

Edited March 12, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Sayonara]

Firstly, it DOES have to do with intelligence because he's talking about "due process" in the US and it is a requirement, albeit subjective, that laws be written so a common man of common intelligence can understand them. That's why waitforufo is phrasing the questions within that context. That's the framework of his post.

I think you have misunderstood me ParanoiA; I did not mean to say that intelligence has no bearing on the issue. What I meant was that whereas waitforufo is claiming that a person of common intelligence would give an answer to the question "who has a husband/wife?" which is contingent on their intelligence, I am making that counter-claim that their answer will be (mostly) contingent on the breadth of their cultural background. The ability of a person to observe, identify, acknowledge, and recall the existence of same-sex partnerships is not dependent on intelligence to the same degree as it is dependent on their cultural experiences.

 

I should probably not have begun the paragraph with the words "that has nothing to do with intelligence". Mea culpa.

 

I should also point out that -- as you say -- laws have to be written so that they can be understood by a common man of common intelligence. This DOES NOT MEAN, as waitforufo implies, that whatever meaning a common man of common intelligence derives from their reading of the law should be regarded as the proper interpretation, nor that it can have any legal merit.

[waitforufo]

I think it will roughly be a 50/50 split depending on who you ask and what area of the country. If you asked me either of those questions, I would respond by answering "wife or husband" to both questions. I may be wrong, but that's my guess. ………in a modern context, I don't believe those questions above would be answered that way, as I posted.

 

Fair enough, in a modern context you have a very good point. The Reynolds decision however was handed down in 1878. As I said from the beginning the Reynolds decision could be used by a modern court to understand how laws from the past defined the word marriage.

 

Another example may be to look at states that have common law marriage. These states are..

 

Alabama

Colorado

District of Columbia

Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)

Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)

Iowa

Kansas

Montana

New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)

Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Texas

Utah

 

In these states all two people have to do to be married is…

 

1) Live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)

 

2) Hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and

 

3) intend to be married.

 

So have you ever heard of a case where two men or two women had a legally recognized common law marriage?

 

I never have. Why? Well perhaps its because everyone commonly understands the definition of marriage.

 

Well, now we live in modern times and I for one think that definition needs to change. As I have said, I look forward to the day when legislatures agree on a better definition and how the new definition will impact laws from the past.

[Sayonara]

So have you ever heard of a case where two men or two women had a legally recognized common law marriage?

 

I never have. Why? Well perhaps its because everyone commonly understands the definition of marriage.

Actually the better hypothesis here is that you have not read all the case law.

[ParanoiA]

I think you have misunderstood me ParanoiA; I did not mean to say that intelligence has no bearing on the issue. What I meant was that whereas waitforufo is claiming that a person of common intelligence would give an answer to the question "who has a husband/wife?" which is contingent on their intelligence, I am making that counter-claim that their answer will be (mostly) contingent on the breadth of their cultural background. The ability of a person to observe, identify, acknowledge, and recall the existence of same-sex partnerships is not dependent on intelligence to the same degree as it is dependent on their cultural experiences.

 

I should probably not have begun the paragraph with the words "that has nothing to do with intelligence". Mea culpa.

 

I should also point out that -- as you say -- laws have to be written so that they can be understood by a common man of common intelligence. This DOES NOT MEAN, as waitforufo implies, that whatever meaning a common man of common intelligence derives from their reading of the law should be regarded as the proper interpretation, nor that it can have any legal merit.

 

Yeah, I think I'm confused, sorry. I've typed three different paragraphs now trying to explain what I'm thinking only to delete them as they make no sense.

 

Never mind me. Carry on.

[Dudde]

I also don't see California as a state recognizing common law marriage, I don't see that as a valid argument to use in this case at all.

 

Also, I took this from another site but seems to pertain to what you were saying

 

Common law marriage is permitted in a minority of states. To be defined as a common law marriage within the states listed below, the two parties must: agree that they are married, live together, and hold themselves out as husband and wife.

 

This isn't defining anything regarding a man and a woman. yours, as stated,

 

1) Live together for a significant period of time (not defined in any state)

 

2) Hold themselves out as a married couple -- typically this means using the same last name, referring to the other as "my husband" or "my wife," and filing a joint tax return, and

 

3) intend to be married.

 

 

Doesn't indicate one man and one woman in any sequence

[Mr Skeptic]

So have you ever heard of a case where two men or two women had a legally recognized common law marriage?

 

I never have. Why? Well perhaps its because everyone commonly understands the definition of marriage.

 

Well, I checked what wikipedia has to say, and apparently the wording for a common law marriage excludes same-sex couples. Alternately, they might be able to do it if one man calls himself a wife or one woman calls herself a husband -- but the community they live in would also have to recognize them as husband and wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States#Elements_required_for_the_establishment_of_a_common-law_marriage

 

Well, now we live in modern times and I for one think that definition needs to change. As I have said, I look forward to the day when legislatures agree on a better definition and how the new definition will impact laws from the past.

 

I think the government would be better off replacing the word marriage with eg civil union, as it would make things go much smoother.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

---

"holding out of each other as husband and wife to the public."

 

actually, that one might allow for same sex couples to get common law marriage, but only in some of the few states that allow it and have that verbiage. Good call, Dudde.

[mooeypoo]

Why would any right-minded court decide to allow gay parents to impose their warped perspectives on an innocent, impressionable child? They would match up a gay child with gay parents, right? Anything other than that is unthinkable.

 

Okay, I'll bite.

 

agentchange, what you state above is an opinion - whether one agrees with it or not is irrelevant - it's personal, quite emotionally-driven opinion.

 

There are a lot of opposing opinions in a society. In fact, I am quite sure there are quite a lot of opinions in a society that would state something you strongly disagree with.

 

If a government decided the fate of *PART* of its citizens according to personal, emotional opinions, we will get ourselves into quite a dangerous situation. Think, for example, what would happen if the (quite large) group of evangelicals would claim that the cinema is shameful, sinful, and encourages twisted ideals and horribly crooked morals. Would you support a law that would ban everyone from watching movies?

 

What if the white majority in some southern states (and it's not all that implausible that this is what a lot of them still thing) decide that it's disgusting to see a black person in police uniforms. Would you support a rule that bans all blacks from police jobs? Really?

 

I don't quite see how gay marriage would personally affect your life, specifically since gay couples do live together and act married (and have children, and adopt children, with less divorce rate and less abandoned children rate) already. What is missing is the rights that other people in the same situations and differently-distributed body-parts do have.

 

It's the desire to get oneself into everyone else's minds, beds and homes that is the difference between a democracy and tyranny of the majority.

 

You might feel compelled to argue for tyranny of the majority at the moment, when the case in point is something you disagree with (and seem to have majority on your side, or at least the vocal majority on your side) but it is not entirely implausible to encounter situations where the wheel turns and you are on the side of the minority.

 

Would you really support laws that are based on extreme personal opinion of a group of people, whether you're in it or not?

[iNow]

I've checked out some of that information that iNow linked to, and I'm really hoping the judge will just laugh and throw this back to be re-written, and re-voted on, it sounds pretty absurd to me with the current writing.

 

<not that this journey hasn't been fun, but in hopes of steering this back on topic...>

 

 

I'm curious. What was it that you read that you found absurd? (I presume it was something you found at this link) I find much of this whole situation absurd, but I'm curious if you could cite some of the bits you encountered that prompted this response in you. I'd love to read it, and I think it would help this thread tremendously.

[Dudde]

 

I'm curious. What was it that you read that you found absurd? (I presume it was something you found at this link)

 

It was indeed actually. I confess I've lost sleep as I find a lot of the documents listed on that site as very interesting to read and see what exactly the different arguments are.

 

I have to say that so far, my favorite read has been the "Attorney General's Response to Amicus Curiae Briefs." It was notable that he used Article 1, Section 1 of the California(or US) Constitution to open; the section states:

 

"All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy"

 

Because after reading further, I see Section 1 Article 7.5, enacted after Prop. 8 took hold, stating,

 

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California

 

The general argument for the first part of the paper is centralized around the fact that as this so outrageously conflicts with each other, that the proposition doesn't necessitate an amendment to, but revision of, the existing constitution. As a quote from that same paper:

 

As in Livermore v. Waite, supra, if proposition 8 is incompatible with the guarantees of article 1, section 1 - as respondent contends it to be-then it may be stricken as ultra vires, notwithstanding that the measure is not a "revision" of the constitution

 

There were actually many, many more pages in that document, 56 I think, I just didn't think it would be polite to quote the entire thing> I do urge you to read this document if you haven't already though, I think the A G makes a good point throughout his response, thus why I stated earlier I was hoping for the judge to throw this out. There's a lot more I wanted to cite, but I don't want an enormous post that confuses more than states. The document presented by "Honor Love Cherish," listed under January 15th on that same link, presented some good personal insight as well, check it out if you get a chance.

 

I did, however, want to cite one more section in the first article of the California Constitution, section 4, which should be common knowledge, but:

 

Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without

discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of

conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent

with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no

law respecting an establishment of religion.(italics added)

 

 

I might be interpreting all kinds of things wrong, but I see this as a clear denial of rights based on the discrimination of a minority group, something our constitution and Bill of Rights were specifically setup to protect against in the first place really. The people arguing in favor of the Prop., not necessarily or specifically ones in this forum - I mean legally, are celebrating the integrity of an institution - but institution of what? Of marriage? Isn't that like putting a "no girls with red hair" sign up on a club house to protect its integrity? Something everybody can use freely except a certain group, and because of something normal to them and beyond their control.

 

Sorry if this is all gibberish. The main point is that, to me, and hopefully the Judicial Branch, Proposition 8 does look like a revision to the Constitution, as opposed to merely an amendment - a fact of which I hope is recognized and used to remove it.

[iNow]

Good article:

 

http://www.gtweekly.com/20090325393070/news/politics/prop-8%E2%80%99s-debate

The ballot initiative passed by a narrow margin last November, changing the Constitution so that marriage is limited to heterosexual unions. Since then the legal debate has focused on the concept of inalienable rights, the scope of the Equal Protection Clause, and the procedure that must be followed to make substantial changes to the state constitution.

 

“An inalienable right, including the freedom to marry the person of your choosing, is a right protected by the state or federal constitution,” says Melanie Rowen, a staff attorney at the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, which delivered oral arguments before the court. “Yet even if we didn’t have the constitution in place, inalienable rights are so fundamental to our human concepts of liberty and dignity that they should never be taken away.”

 

One question presented to the Supreme Court is whether voters can pass laws that limit such rights. “Saying Christians can no longer publish newspaper editorials is just as much a violation of an inalienable right as to say that gay people can’t marry,” says Rowen. According to case history, marriage is protected by the constitutional rights of privacy and due process, just as freedom of speech and assembly protect religious publications.

 

“It’s a human rights issue. There are protections that all folks deserve,” says David Grishaw-Jones, senior minister at the Santa Cruz-based First Congregational Church.

 

<...>

 

The state constitution allows voters to make small amendments to the constitution through ballot initiatives, yet revisions, which are more substantial changes, must gain legislative or more deliberative procedure. In the case of the death penalty, the court ultimately found the initiative to be an amendment. The popular vote was thus upheld.

 

Yet in the case of Proposition 8, things are a little different, says Rowen. Regardless of a mass murderer’s race, ethnicity and gender, the death penalty can be sought with due process. This means the voter’s decision applies to all people, and the language of the ballot initiative did not discriminate against any one class. With Proposition 8, the protected right of marriage is being limited to heterosexuals, thus discriminating against same-sex couples.

 

“The question is whether a simple majority of voters can change the constitution so that it offers protection to only part of the population, and thus limits rights for gay people and other minorities,” says Rowen.

 

According to the equal protection clause of the state and federal constitutions, rights must apply to all people, and cannot be selectively enforced. According to Proposition 8, the right of marriage is limited to a select group. “It is thus not a legitimate ballot initiative,” says Rowen.

Slippery Slope

 

If we limit marriage protections to one group, there is nothing to stop future initiatives from limiting the rights of other minorities, says Grishaw-Jones. “There are folks out there who would be happy to start restricting rights to education, religious rights and other marriage rights.”

 

What happens if the Mormon Church later supports a ballot initiative that defines marriage as an eternal covenant? What if the Catholic Church suggests weddings are only legally valid when officiated by a priest? Groups with differing concepts of the afterlife might protest, as “death do us part” would be written out of the ceremony. Women would also not be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies, as the priesthood is limited to men.

 

More likely, what if voters next outlaw domestic partnership rights? During the March 5 hearing Justice Werdegar asked whether voters, according to Starr’s views, could pass an amendment that takes away the right of same-sex couples to form family relationships and bring up children together. Starr stated that if Proposition 8 had included these terms, it would still be valid. Justice Carlos R. Moreno asked if same-sex couples could be precluded from adopting children by amendment? Once more, Starr’s answer was yes.

 

“It’s alarming because there is no limit to this argument,” says Rowen. What will prevent others from defining property rights so narrowly that minorities or Christians, or any other unpopular group, is excluded? Ironically, both Mormons and Catholics have been the unlucky recipients of such discrimination in the past. Proposition 8 undermines the very concept of equal protection that has guarded their interests, allowing both churches to grow financially.

 

“It’s much larger than a gay rights issue, which is why many religious, social justice and minority groups have joined us in our fight for equality,” says Rowen. If monogamous marriage is protected, it is not legal to limit participation to a select group. When the law offers protection, everyone must benefit—otherwise, a slippery slope begins.

 

The fabric of democracy is weakened when voters are allowed to pass laws that don’t impact themselves, but instead target a different group of people, says Rowen. As any fifth grader knows, our founding fathers established a system that protects minorities from this very tyranny. America is not a true democracy, it is a democratic republic. The courts and legislative process are designed to protect the rights of all minority groups, and prevent the masses from infringing on minority rights.

 

More at the link.

[iNow]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-supreme-court20-2008nov20,0,2453702.story

The California Supreme Court agreed today to review legal challenges to Prop. 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a ruling.

The court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage on May 15 in a 4-3 historic decision. Opponents of gay marriage gathered enough signatures to place Proposition 8 on the ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment.

 

Gay rights advocates argue that the measure was actually a constitutional revision, instead of a more limited amendment. A revision of the state Constitution can be placed before the voters only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a constitutional convention.

 

Lawsuits to overturn the initiative contend it was a revision because it denied equal protection to a minority group and eviscerated a key constitutional guarantee. Supporters of Proposition 8 counter that it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage.

 

The court's previous rulings on similar lawsuits have been mixed.

 

 

<...>

 

How do you think the Supreme Courts will rule?

 

The courts gave their decision today on Prop 8. They decided to uphold Proposition 8, and while new marriages between same sex partners will not currently be allowed in California, the court has decided that the 18,000 same sex marriages already in place will still be valid.

 

The reasoning is that the courts did not want to overturn the will of the voters, but I think something can be said of Ken Starr's (of Clinton impeachment fame) ability as a lawyer.

 

 

The question now becomes, what's next? If I may be allowed to speculate, same sex marriage will happen soon enough, much like it has in Iowa, Maine, Washington DC, and other locales.

[scrappy]

The courts gave their decision today on Prop 8. They decided to uphold Proposition 8...The question now becomes, what's next? If I may be allowed to speculate, same sex marriage will happen soon enough, much like it has in Iowa, Maine, Washington DC, and other locales.

In Washington state we now have the "everything-but-marriage" law for same-sex civil unions. But, like Prop 8, it's being challenged on constitutional grounds. If Washington's SC upholds the existing law then it would seem that this whole SSM issue is about the word "marriage." Which it is, I think, once all the basic rights are extended to same-sex couples. (But some may think it is bigoted to ask why that isn't enough for them.)

[Mokele]

Honestly, my predition is that CA is doomed to a two-year yo-yo cycle, with gay marriage oscillating between legal and not, until it finally gets decided at the federal level, at which point they'll find something else to squabble about, with the same yo-yo effect.

 

Which goes back to my contention about 10 pages ago that allowing constitutional ammendment by simple majority is just a stupid idea.

[john5746]

The question now becomes, what's next? If I may be allowed to speculate, same sex marriage will happen soon enough, much like it has in Iowa, Maine, Washington DC, and other locales.

 

I hope you are correct, but I think Obama will not want to expend any political capital on this issue - especially since he is against it. I can't see it happening in the southern states, unless by federal law.

[Dudde]

Mokele

Which goes back to my contention about 10 pages ago that allowing constitutional ammendment by simple majority is just a stupid idea.

 

definitely agreed my friend!

 

I can definitely say I opened my normal news sites to silent cursing of the California minds who've pushed this proposition through, but I think iNow is probably right - California will fight probably for a long time, but they'll give in when most of the other states allow it. Hopefully.

[scrappy]

Watching the news coverage on this issue leaves me in a quandary. Those who argue for “gay marriage” do so on the grounds that such a marriage is protected by the CA constitution. And then when the SCOCA rules that Prop. 8 is not unconstitutional those who oppose it are all pissed off. But why? Don’t they now have their legal answer after their day in court? Are they interested in constitutional law? Or are they interested in self-serving politics? The matter has been rightfully settled: Prop. 8 prevailed and if gays want to get “married’ they can go to Iowa. Sorry, but that’s just the way constitutional governments work.

[iNow]

Watching the news coverage on this issue leaves me in a quandary. Those who argue for “gay marriage” do so on the grounds that such a marriage is protected by the CA constitution. And then when the SCOCA rules that Prop. 8 is not unconstitutional those who oppose it are all pissed off. But why? Don’t they now have their legal answer after their day in court? Are they interested in constitutional law? Or are they interested in self-serving politics? The matter has been rightfully settled: Prop. 8 prevailed and if gays want to get “married’ they can go to Iowa. Sorry, but that’s just the way constitutional governments work.

 

Scrappy,

 

Based on what you wrote above, you don't seem to understand the ruling, nor the legal framework at play here. You've very poorly and inaccurately represented the actual circumstance. Let me try to help you with that.

 

Over a year ago, the California Supreme Court deemed the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, which it was and is.

Then, last year, Prop 8 was put on the ballot as a measure to change the state constitution to explicitly state that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Voters passed it, so the California constitution now says that same sex partners cannot be married, despite the equal protections provisions already in place.

 

The ruling yesterday by the California SC is simply that the Prop 8 ballot measure followed the proper steps, and will be allowed. Since Prop 8 changed the constitution itself, bans on same sex marriage can no longer be ruled as unconstitutional by the courts.

 

What will happen is next year they will have another vote to see if this change to the constitution will be allowed to remain, but I hope you see now where your logic was broken and why Prop 8 is being allowed to stand.

[scrappy]

Scrappy,

 

Based on what you wrote above, you don't seem to understand the ruling, nor the legal framework at play here. You've very poorly and inaccurately represented the actual circumstance. Let me try to help you with that.

 

Over a year ago, the California Supreme Court deemed the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, which it was and is.

Then, last year, Prop 8 was put on the ballot as a measure to change the state constitution to explicitly state that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Voters passed it, so the California constitution now says that same sex partners cannot be married, despite the equal protections provisions already in place.

 

The ruling yesterday by the California SC is simply that the Prop 8 ballot measure followed the proper steps, and will be allowed. Since Prop 8 changed the constitution itself, bans on same sex marriage can no longer be ruled as unconstitutional by the courts.

 

What will happen is next year they will have another vote to see if this change to the constitution will be allowed to remain, but I hope you see now where your logic was broken and why Prop 8 is being allowed to stand.

Thank you for that explanation, iNow. I do understand what you are saying. But the issue, as it is being resolved, ultimately concerns the constitutionality of "gay marriage." That's really all that's important here. There rest is politics and whose biases prevail in the end. I'm sure glad science doesn't work that way. (Or does it?)