I just read about it online and figured you'd have a post of some kind up.
Now it looks like things head in two directions simultaneously. An appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court level, and a California ballot initiative to try and change the California constitution to ban same-sex marriage again.
Hopefully people will finally wake up and call it what it is, discrimination plain and simple.
Actually, this decision isn't eligible to go to the US Supreme Court. The ruling was very narrow and only focused on interpretations of State Constitutional provisions. As such, the decision is not eligible for review by the USSC. Which isn't to say that other approaches could be made, but they cannot be about this ruling, since it was a state court's interpretation of state constitutional law.
The only recourse for opponents is the state constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. There is an initiative in the works. Governer Arnold has already come out against such an amendment and rightly declaims such bigotry as a waste of time and a dead end. He's kind of irked me in his insistence that the courts handle the matter, because I swear I recalled his initial position was exactly the opposite (legislation>courts). He himself vetoed legislation TWICE that passed the state congress that would have permitted same-sex marriage. So if any bigots get pissy about "judicial activism," you can remind them of this fact.
So, yeah, it's not over yet, but although only 8 years have passed since the original discriminatory law limiting marriage to mixed sex couple passed, support for an amendment is not strong, and has never been particularly strong. Also, opinion polls have consistently shown that the younger you are, the more you're in favor of allowing SSM. One state in the union already has had SSM and the world has not ended. Further, people really do remember the actual human beings who, for that short time, got married in San Francisco when the mayor allowed them (however premature this was).
The PDF of the opinion is pretty meaty. Both the majority and the concurring/dissenting opinions are interesting to read. They really kept the focus very, very narrow, only ruling on the law's violation of non-discrimination/equal protection clauses. It did not in any way sanctify SSM nor prevent proper legislative action to be taken. I'm pretty sure they took such pains to do this to underscore that they were not trying to "legislate from the bench."
Good breakdown. I agree the opinion was justifiably meaty, and to marry my honey is somethin' on my list
Now....aren't you glad I encouraged you to move to SF ?
Although MA would be nice, and closer. Weather year round is better in SF though, but summers in MA are glorious and if you love the snow MA is great, but winter is LONG.
Comments (4)
I just read about it online and figured you'd have a post of some kind up.
Now it looks like things head in two directions simultaneously. An appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court level, and a California ballot initiative to try and change the California constitution to ban same-sex marriage again.
Hopefully people will finally wake up and call it what it is, discrimination plain and simple.
Actually, this decision isn't eligible to go to the US Supreme Court. The ruling was very narrow and only focused on interpretations of State Constitutional provisions. As such, the decision is not eligible for review by the USSC. Which isn't to say that other approaches could be made, but they cannot be about this ruling, since it was a state court's interpretation of state constitutional law.
The only recourse for opponents is the state constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. There is an initiative in the works. Governer Arnold has already come out against such an amendment and rightly declaims such bigotry as a waste of time and a dead end. He's kind of irked me in his insistence that the courts handle the matter, because I swear I recalled his initial position was exactly the opposite (legislation>courts). He himself vetoed legislation TWICE that passed the state congress that would have permitted same-sex marriage. So if any bigots get pissy about "judicial activism," you can remind them of this fact.
So, yeah, it's not over yet, but although only 8 years have passed since the original discriminatory law limiting marriage to mixed sex couple passed, support for an amendment is not strong, and has never been particularly strong. Also, opinion polls have consistently shown that the younger you are, the more you're in favor of allowing SSM. One state in the union already has had SSM and the world has not ended. Further, people really do remember the actual human beings who, for that short time, got married in San Francisco when the mayor allowed them (however premature this was).
The PDF of the opinion is pretty meaty. Both the majority and the concurring/dissenting opinions are interesting to read. They really kept the focus very, very narrow, only ruling on the law's violation of non-discrimination/equal protection clauses. It did not in any way sanctify SSM nor prevent proper legislative action to be taken. I'm pretty sure they took such pains to do this to underscore that they were not trying to "legislate from the bench."
Good breakdown. I agree the opinion was justifiably meaty, and to marry my honey is somethin' on my list
Now....aren't you glad I encouraged you to move to SF ?
Although MA would be nice, and closer. Weather year round is better in SF though, but summers in MA are glorious and if you love the snow MA is great, but winter is LONG.
Comments are closed.