Comments on: California Supreme Court Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutional

By: Kat

Kat — Mon, 19 May 2008 06:01:00 +0000

I was thrilled to hear this on the news this week! I am hoping that when the amendment to change the constitution come to a vote – and it will- that more people step forward and stand for equality. Remember the courts decision was to overturn a statewide proposition that passed by better than 60% defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We proved years ago that separate is not equal. IMO, as far as the state (or any government) is concerned marriage should be a civil contract between two people. Churches can define it however they choose, but they shouldn’t be able to define it for everyone.

By: Tasha

Tasha — Fri, 16 May 2008 18:36:46 +0000

The significance of this ruling isn’t so much that it makes same-sex marriage valid in other jurisdictions (it doesn’t), but that it puts sexual orientation in in the same class as gender, race, and religious beliefs in terms of rights and protections under the California constitution–specifically so.

Gays can now challenge ANY state policy that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. That’s a major step forward.

Further, this is not a radical, activist court. This is a mostly Republican appointed court, and a very well-respected one–meaning this decision is going to carry a lot of weight for courts around the country.

By: Nora Roberts

Nora Roberts — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:49:04 +0000

This is excellent.

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:07:36 +0000

I think that a consistent finding would uphold the marriage, BUT some states courts are free to torture the interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause to not recognize it. An exception to the FF&C Clause is “against public policy” so some states’ courts could find that it would be against “public policy” to uphold the marriage. My guess is if there is a same sex marriage ban in one state that has been upheld and/or unchallenged, then the “public policy” exception will allow them to not recognize the marriage.

By: ジェーン(Jān)

ジェーン(Jān) — Fri, 16 May 2008 02:03:43 +0000

Thanks Jane. Wow, so this is really a huge victory then. It basically invalidates in practice the gay marriage bans in other states as long as a couple can go to California?

So basically the anti-gay marriage people will be trying to get constitutional amendments passed in California and at the national level then, because that’s their only chance to get their way? I hope they fail big-time.

By: Jane

Jane — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:53:31 +0000

No, that’s right. The Calif. Supreme Court has the last say on how it interprets the Calif Constitution.

Jan – The full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution is the one under which judgments and decrees made in one state are honored in another. I.e., if you go to a state like Nevada that doesn’t have a waiting period for divorce or marriage, your marriage/divorce should be upheld in the state in which you reside.

By: ジェーン(Jān)

ジェーン(Jān) — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:31:28 +0000

Butter! XD Thanks Whey!

OK then, I’m just trying to wrap my head around what this means. So unless California voters pass one of those stupid amendments that bans gay marriage, gay marriage is legal there? What happens then when a legally married couple in California goes to a state where they’ve banned gay marriage then? Does their marriage disappear? It couldn’t, right? So other states will be forced to acknowledge it? How confusing, but I hope it’s so. :)

By: whey

whey — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:21:15 +0000

But it just means that the next stop is the Supreme Court, correct?

From my intensive eight minute research into this, no. SCOTUS can’t interpret a state’s constitution. The California constitution would have to be amended.

Two minutes from now, I will probably discover the exact opposite. I still don’t know whether butter or margarine is better for us.

By: K. Z. Snow

K. Z. Snow — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:20:34 +0000

Yippee! Sometimes common sense and fairness DO prevail!

By: ジェーン(Jān)

ジェーン(Jān) — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:59:04 +0000

This is good. But it just means that the next stop is the Supreme Court, correct? I have a feeling a ruling from them might not be so good. :(