(CA) State Supreme Court won't block start of same-sex marriages

[canis_lupus]

The State Supreme Court has rejected a request to postpone last month's decision overturning the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based group opposing gay marriage, joined with other opponents and asked the court to stay its decision until voters had a chance to cast their ballots on the matter again in November.

But by a 4-3 vote released Wednesday by the court, a rehearing was denied.

The order also said that the decision of the court on May 15 would become final on June 16 at 5 p.m., paving the way for gay marriages the following day at county offices throughout the state.

In arguing for a delay, the amendment's sponsors predicted that chaos would ensue if couples could get married during the next few months, only to have the practice halted at the ballot box.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/988613.html

[GodlessBiker]

1. Woohoo!

[succubus.blues]

2. Fantastic!!

:)

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Excellent news! n/t

[Tyler Durden]

4. How can the "Ballot Box" restrict equal rights?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that question from some folks.

Not here, though.

[Q3JR4]

9. I think that the whole thing comes down to the fact that

marriage is a right conferred by the state to it's citizens. Therefore the final arbiter of what marriage is is the highest court in that particular state. In this instance the California Supreme Court has only to look at that state's constitution to make the determination about granting equal marriage rights to all the citizens of the state. If the the constitution is successfully changed (by voters at a ballot box), then the previous ruling becomes null and void.

There is this other issue of the federal interpretation of marriage laws, but since marriage falls under the purview of the states and state constitutions I think the only time the federal court system will get involved will be when some state with no restrictions (like California) legalizes same-sex marriage permanently. In that case you'll have same-sex couples moving from state to state demanding their equal marriage rights. The Supreme Court will eventually have to decide if the Federal DOMA stands or if their previous decisions (i.e. Loving V. Virginia) hold sway on this issue.

It will make for a very interesting ruling (in the Loving decision there was no federal definition of marriage), whichever way the court goes, and the case will take a year or two to make it's way to the Supreme Court. By that time President Obama should have had the chance to appoint a justice to the Supreme Court which may or may not help.

What we have to do to GIVE the Supreme Court its chance to rule on this issue and start the ball rolling in the direction of greater equality for everyone in this country is put all of our time, effort, and money into defeating the gay marriage amendment in California.

I'd say we have a very good chance of doing that now that the Supreme Court of California has decided not to stay it's previous marriage ruling.

Q3JR4.
Disclaimer: Q3JR4 has no official training in the legal profession or the law but is really turned on by both and may at some point in the future attend law school to get his feet wet. Since that time has yet to come, the preceding statement is something that feels right to Q3JR4 but is also something he pulled out of his ass.

[swimboy]

10. I just want to thank you for pulling that out of your ass.

This news is wonderful news. I also hope many, many same-sex couples marry in California. However long it takes, I want this wave to sweep inexorably from coast to coast.

:thumbsup:

[Ms. Toad]

11. No legal reason it needs to wait for California

>>the federal court system will get involved will be when some state with no restrictions (like California) legalizes same-sex marriage permanently. In that case you'll have same-sex couples moving from state to state demanding their equal marriage rights. The Supreme Court will eventually have to decide if the Federal DOMA stands or if their previous decisions (i.e. Loving V. Virginia) hold sway on this issue.<<

Any couple legally married in one state (like Massachusetts) or in another country (Canada) could test DOMA now. Loving v. Virginia was not dependent on the marrying state having "no restrictions" to marry - just that the marriage was legal where it was performed. There were restrictions on who could marry in Mass (I believe at least one had to be a resident of Massachussets), but as long as the couple met the restrictions at the time they were married they could now seek recognition in a different residence state. Same thing for couples married in Canada, who don't now - or perhaps never did - live in Canada. Slightly different, but generally equivalent, legal principles (out of country v. out of state marriages).

Personally, I'm not pushing the issue at the moment. I don't think it would turn out well given the current composition of the Supreme Court - but that's for strategic reasons rather than legal ones. Our family has already made bad state law (second parent adoption), I don't feel like doing it at the federal level.

[Tyler Durden]

12. That sets up a 14th amendment conflict.

The 14th amendment guarantees equal treatment for all citizens and promises federal intervention.

Of course, the Fed has fallen down on the job.

[mitchtv]

5. We got our rings today

I feel very MAINSTREAM:woohoo:

[Q3JR4]

8. Congratulations!

I'm so happy for you and for all Californians.

Q3JR4.

[Q3JR4]

6. Yay!

[Q3JR4]

7. This is it!

I call upon all Californians old and young who are in same-sex committed relationships to marry each other in full view of your friends, families, neighbors, and the strangers on the street. Let them see how normal we are and I guarantee that we'll beat this divisive and anti-family amendment to the California constitution.


Q3JR4.
"The Bush administration renewed its call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So I guess they feel the only time that guys should be on top of each other naked is in an Iraqi prison." — Jay Leno

"President Bush said he was 'troubled' by gay people getting married in San Francisco. He said on important issues like this the people should make the decision, not judges. Unless of course we're choosing a president, then he prefers judges." — Jay Leno