I am also curious to see why the ruling was not unanimous. Did the dissenters think it went to far or not far enough or what?
The dissenters were pretty much uber right wing conservatives who find the whole existence of gays to be "icky." Kennedy, not surprisingly, was the swing vote here. Generally, he's always been the middle of the road type during his tenure on the Supreme Court -- not too liberal, but not too conservative either.
Would it still be a 14th issue if the state did not confer any special privileges on married couples? (Not likely because those privileges are pretty well ingrained.)
Wasn't that the crux of the case against DOMA? A same sex couple was hit with an inheritance tax because their legal marriage in Canada was not recognized in the states? Thus she was not treated equally to other married couples? (Gross simplification).
That's pretty much the reasoning behind why the DOMA (or at least the federal-only part of it, anyway) was struck down. If it wasn't for the special privileges/legal benefits, the whole gay marriage thing probably wouldn't be a big deal as people can just get themselves "married" at whatever organization supported their marriage (for example, the Unitarian Church performs gay marriages, as well as some more liberal Jewish Rabbis). Hell, there are some parts of the country where people practice polygamy despite it not having legal recognition and therefore no legal benefits (though I am not going down the rat hole of equating legalizing gay marriage with legalizing polygamy -- I'm just using it as an example where people practice something that's not legally recognized).
I am also curious to see why the ruling was not unanimous. Did the dissenters think it went to far or not far enough or what?
It may have something to do with how the government is largely comprised of morally bereft old people who are disproportionally influenced by ultra wealthy special interest groups.
I am still looking for a good article that explains how the CA prop system works. My main problem is that I can't find information as to how a state court is able to make rulings on constitutional amendments.
At the federal level once the constitution is amended (a very long and involved process) it takes another amendment to change it back (prohibition). SCOTUS and the other co-equal branches lack the authority to declare an amendment unconstitutional (and throw it out) so why is it different in CA when they amend their constitution?
I am not looking for opinions but the hard rules for the process in CA beyond the point of getting the initiative on the ballot.
I am still looking for a good article that explains how the CA prop system works. My main problem is that I can't find information as to how a state court is able to make rulings on constitutional amendments.
Actually, according to the info I can find on Prop 8, all the relevant rulings were done by federal courts. The state courts pretty much upheld it as legal. The problem with Prop 8 was that it was unconstitutional relative to the federal constitution, which trumps all state constitutions. Apparently Prop 8 was legit when limited to the CA state constitution.
I am still looking for a good article that explains how the CA prop system works. My main problem is that I can't find information as to how a state court is able to make rulings on constitutional amendments.
Actually, according to the info I can find on Prop 8, all the relevant rulings were done by federal courts. The state courts pretty much upheld it as legal. The problem with Prop 8 was that it was unconstitutional relative to the federal constitution, which trumps all state constitutions. Apparently Prop 8 was legit when limited to the CA state constitution.
How did it ever end up in front of a state court in the first place?
Reading through the timeline of prop 8 and scotusblog for today's ruling gives me the following picture:
CA state court: prop 8 is legal! Federal District court in CA: illegal based on conflict with US Constitution. (Appeals...appeals...appeals...) SCOTUS: everything after the FDC is null and void and we are sending it back to the first appeals court to be dismissed because no one with standing defended it in court...
How did it ever end up in front of a state court in the first place?
Federal question jurisdiction. Once the amendment to the state constitution went through and started being applied, those impacted by it had standing to sue in federal court on the basis that it violated the Federal constitution.
The people harmed by the law had standing, and the state was responsible for defending the law in court. Those are the only two parties that would have been able to bring appeals. Once the state stopped appealing, the case SHOULD have been left as final. Instead, these guys who started Prop 8 in the first place took up the banner. They have no standing, so their appeals are ALL void.
Another point I just had clarified for me is that the SC of CA did not rule on prop 8 as a constitutional matter but as a process matter (was it lawfully passed). They found it was lawfully passed.
That makes more sense.
What I am looking for but have not yet found is a list of props that were passed at the ballot box but later thrown out via the courts.
Yeah, that's an important point. The state court doesn't have the jurisdiction to rule on Federal constitutionality, so they wouldn't have taken up that decision. Whether it is a lawful amendment to the CA constitution is basically all they could rule on, since an amendment to a constitution can't very well be found unconstitutional under that same constitution.
Prop 22 (from 2000, overturned in 2008 which led to prop 8) was not an amendment to the CA constitution and was overturned by the CA courts. It added a statute defining marriage as man+woman.
Looking through all the national action going on with some states using the legislative process to pass and others being forced via the judiciary to allow I find myself with a question.
Gender is a protected class federally while sexual orientation is not. Shouldn't same sex marriage be legal as a gender discrimination issue regardless of sexual orientation?
One thing that still bothers me about the same sex marriage movement is their embrace of marriage as a fundamental right. If it is such a right then wouldn't a win on those grounds directly lead to ending bans on blood relatives marrying, age requirements and the restriction of only two people in a marriage?
One thing that still bothers me about the same sex marriage movement is their embrace of marriage as a fundamental right. If it is such a right then wouldn't a win on those grounds directly lead to ending bans on blood relatives marrying, age requirements and the restriction of only two people in a marriage?
Slippery slope much? Besides, is polyamory really all that scary if it consists of consenting adults?
One thing that still bothers me about the same sex marriage movement is their embrace of marriage as a fundamental right. If it is such a right then wouldn't a win on those grounds directly lead to ending bans on blood relatives marrying, age requirements and the restriction of only two people in a marriage?
Slippery slope much? Besides, is polyamory really all that scary if it consists of consenting adults?
My point is more about the fact that most people who throw around "fundamental right to marry" are also the first ones to say their arguments can not be used to legalize polyamory. In fact I find that as soon as you bring up polygamy to someone who is making the fundamental argument they get bitchy and turn on you.
The other good one is when someone brings up the full faith and credit clause as a reason why states have to recognize same sex marriage licenses from other states. When you then ask if states must then also recognize out of state gun licences they tend to get upset.
A case was just filed in FL where the couple was married in Canada.
If the marriage occurred outside of the US would any legal issue be governed by treaties instead of the constitution? Do the states and feds have to recognize all foreign marriages even in cases of polygamy, incest and children?
If treaties exist, they're on the level of federal law, i.e. below the US Constitution and above state law. There's significant common-law precedent for states not recognizing marriage in those cases (if it's not written into any relevant treaties themselves).
Treaties that are signed AND ratified are supreme law of the land. The thing is, very few treaties have been signed by the US, and even fewer have been ratified by the Senate. So we're pretty much not bound by them at all except on a voluntary basis.
My question is more about standing. While I understand getting married in one state and then sueing your home state to recognize the marriage I feel that getting married in a whole different country and sueing for recognition upon your return is a very different legal issue. More so when what I can find from the state department is that only marriages that are currently legal within the state have to be recognized by the state.
It looks like the recent ruling in the Michigan affirmative action case may have an impact on the courts involvement in overturning same sex marriage bans.
In essence the court has reaffirmed the federalism angle from Windsor saying that it is appropriate for voters to decide such issues.
Been doing some thinking on this lately. Is it fair to say that modern marriage is morphing away from the "for the children" rational of the past and into an adult's freedom of association issue?
While the "traditional" marriage crowd don't like to admit it marriage as a child centered institution has been under attack since long before same sex marriage was a political issue. With every change that made divorce easier and marriages between people incapable of bearing children legally justified we have moved further and further away from the argument that marriage is about kids.
Since this is pretty much the catch-all thread for these sorts of topics:
I guess you guys have heard by now of Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teenager who committed suicide about a week ago because she could not handle her situation anymore. When she came out to her super-christian parents she was taken out of school, isolated from her social circle and put into conversion therapy. Her story made international news because her parents posted about her death on facebook with something akin to "our beloved son went to heaven today" before an outpost on tumblr (I believe) essentially publicized her suicide letter, which is the unfortunate situation thousands of teenagers are faced with today.
Anyway, I kind of need to vent, because every time I read on this I get upset. Not just about the behavior of the parents, but also about complete assholes on the internet I had the "pleasure" to see opine on the subject. To them it seems that it's so unfair that nobody ever talks about the driver of the truck she jumped in front of, and how this super-selfish act endangered other people due to her chosen method of suicide. This if course is used to completely invalidate her position and to a certain extend her anguish.
Do these people not understand that this girl was so fucking mentally distraught and abused to the point that she committed suicide? Isn't it kind of obvious that suicidal people aren't the most rational people? Desperate people doing desperate things? FUCK!
Comments
At the federal level once the constitution is amended (a very long and involved process) it takes another amendment to change it back (prohibition). SCOTUS and the other co-equal branches lack the authority to declare an amendment unconstitutional (and throw it out) so why is it different in CA when they amend their constitution?
I am not looking for opinions but the hard rules for the process in CA beyond the point of getting the initiative on the ballot.
Reading through the timeline of prop 8 and scotusblog for today's ruling gives me the following picture:
CA state court: prop 8 is legal!
Federal District court in CA: illegal based on conflict with US Constitution.
(Appeals...appeals...appeals...)
SCOTUS: everything after the FDC is null and void and we are sending it back to the first appeals court to be dismissed because no one with standing defended it in court...
Is that about right or did I miss something?
The people harmed by the law had standing, and the state was responsible for defending the law in court. Those are the only two parties that would have been able to bring appeals. Once the state stopped appealing, the case SHOULD have been left as final. Instead, these guys who started Prop 8 in the first place took up the banner. They have no standing, so their appeals are ALL void.
That makes more sense.
What I am looking for but have not yet found is a list of props that were passed at the ballot box but later thrown out via the courts.
Gender is a protected class federally while sexual orientation is not. Shouldn't same sex marriage be legal as a gender discrimination issue regardless of sexual orientation?
One thing that still bothers me about the same sex marriage movement is their embrace of marriage as a fundamental right. If it is such a right then wouldn't a win on those grounds directly lead to ending bans on blood relatives marrying, age requirements and the restriction of only two people in a marriage?
If the marriage occurred outside of the US would any legal issue be governed by treaties instead of the constitution? Do the states and feds have to recognize all foreign marriages even in cases of polygamy, incest and children?
In essence the court has reaffirmed the federalism angle from Windsor saying that it is appropriate for voters to decide such issues.
While the "traditional" marriage crowd don't like to admit it marriage as a child centered institution has been under attack since long before same sex marriage was a political issue. With every change that made divorce easier and marriages between people incapable of bearing children legally justified we have moved further and further away from the argument that marriage is about kids.
I guess you guys have heard by now of Leelah Alcorn, a transgender teenager who committed suicide about a week ago because she could not handle her situation anymore. When she came out to her super-christian parents she was taken out of school, isolated from her social circle and put into conversion therapy. Her story made international news because her parents posted about her death on facebook with something akin to "our beloved son went to heaven today" before an outpost on tumblr (I believe) essentially publicized her suicide letter, which is the unfortunate situation thousands of teenagers are faced with today.
Anyway, I kind of need to vent, because every time I read on this I get upset. Not just about the behavior of the parents, but also about complete assholes on the internet I had the "pleasure" to see opine on the subject. To them it seems that it's so unfair that nobody ever talks about the driver of the truck she jumped in front of, and how this super-selfish act endangered other people due to her chosen method of suicide. This if course is used to completely invalidate her position and to a certain extend her anguish.
Do these people not understand that this girl was so fucking mentally distraught and abused to the point that she committed suicide? Isn't it kind of obvious that suicidal people aren't the most rational people? Desperate people doing desperate things? FUCK!
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=151&typ=bil&val=hb1414