What if Prop. 8 destroys marriage rights for everyone?

[AntiFascist]

In the California Supreme Court decision granting gay and lesbian people the right to marry, they discussed two possible remedies: one was to grant gay people the right to marry, the other was to remove marriage rights for everyone in California! What if the Supremes are left with no choice but to go with plan B?

[polichick]

1. imo it would serve small-minded people right!

[amyrose2712]

9. Yes, I agree. nt

[billyoc]

2. Excellent explanation of why Prop. 8 is FundieMental fucked up.

:hi:

[wtmusic]

3. Do you have a link to a SCOTUS opinion that

removing marriage rights selectively for CA was an option?

It was my understanding that SCOTUS decisions can't be targeted to a specific state.

[AntiFascist]

8. Sorry, edited post to say "California Supreme Court"....

this only affects marriage rights specific to the state.

[lligrd]

That Would Be Hilarious nt

[Vincardog]

4. They passed an Amendment in TX that says that "The State of Texas recognizes nothing the same as

or equal to marriage".

SO the Texas constitution now states that no one is married.

[vaberella]

7. Actually it sounds like TX hasn't defined marriage, or interprets the constitution differently.

Which is my argument in post #6.

[Vincardog]

10. Actually they define marriage as between one man and one woman. They fail to note which man and

which woman are allowed to be married. The point is that is goes on to state that "the State of Texas does not recognize anything the same as or similar to marriage".

[TomInTib]

5. I wonder how it would affect alimony.

That aspect could swing a lot of votes.

[vaberella]

6. Can Plan B actually provide a new way to think of "marriage"?

Can it be a way to define it as "Civil Unions"? So marriage rights are relegated to ONLY religious ceremonies. While the legal or more court based "marriages" would then be abolished and be so named, "civil unions"? This maintains that the fundies are happy and homosexual marriages enjoy the full rights that heterosexual couples are afforded.

[AntiFascist]

11. I believe this is the solution that the Supreme Court discussed...

I will try to find links to the discussion. I doubt that many married couples or couples planning to get married would be too happy with this.

[vaberella]

14. They wouldn't but the above statement by the OP actually works in the favor of EVERYONE

at hand rather than actually discourages marriage.

[AntiFascist]

12. From Pages 119 - 120 of the decision:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

When a statute’s differential treatment of separate categories of individuals
is found to violate equal protection principles, a court must determine whether the
constitutional violation should be eliminated or cured by extending to the
previously excluded class the treatment or benefit that the statute affords to the
included class, or alternatively should be remedied by withholding the benefit
equally from both the previously included class and the excluded class. A court
generally makes that determination by considering whether extending the benefit
equally to both classes, or instead withholding it equally, would be most consistent
with the likely intent of the Legislature, had that body recognized that unequal
treatment was constitutionally impermissible.

...

In the present case, it is readily apparent that extending the designation of
marriage to same-sex couples clearly is more consistent with the probable
legislative intent than withholding that designation from both opposite-sex couples
and same-sex couples in favor of some other, uniform designation. In view of the
lengthy history of the use of the term “marriage” to describe the family
relationship here at issue, and the importance that both the supporters of the 1977
amendment to the marriage statutes and the electors who voted in favor of
Proposition 22 unquestionably attached to the designation of marriage, there can
be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather
than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most
consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference.

Other sections discuss Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships as being "lower class" types of designations, but I can't readily find where they discuss throwing all marriage rights under such a designation.

[vaberella]

15. Thanks for this information it's good stuff. n/t

[AntiFascist]

13. I should point out Plan C of the Religious Right...

would be to strike out the equality clause from the Constitution. Then, this would open the door for all kinds of crazy laws such as those favoring Christians over Muslims (see Colin Powell on that one).