CA Invalidates San Fran gay weddings

[FreeState]

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions.cgi

Just released
EDIT:

Quote

"Accordingly, for the reasons that follow, we agree with petitioners that local officials in San Francisco exceeded their authority by taking official action in violation of applicable statutory provisions. We therefore shall issue a writ of mandate directing the officials to enforce those provisions unless and until they are judicially determined to be unconstitutional and to take all necessary remedial steps to undo the continuing effects of the officialsÕ past unauthorized actions, including making appropriate corrections to all relevant official records and notifying all affected same-sex couples that the same-sex marriages authorized by the officials are void and of no legal effect. "

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S122923.PDF

[Rose Siding]

1. It was just announced on AAR, too.

Which case of those listed is relevant?

[FreeState]

3. Added direct link and quote to original post N/T

[freetobegay]

2. This is truley a sad day.

:-(

[Pachamama]

19. It is only a minor setback...but yes, it is very sad....

Remember, this is a ruling stating the the Mayor of San Francisco didn't have the "authority to issue these licenses"....its not a ruling stating gay marriage is unconstitutional....I think procedurally, it was correct by the court. The Mayor and all couples knew this going in....

The victory was already won in the message sent through the media coverage and the acts of the ceremonies themselves that showed this country and the world that people who love eachother will prevail and that will never be stopped.

:hi:

[Surf Cowboy]

37. You're right.

The issue needed to be challenged by a couple who suffered some sort of harm or discrimination. There was no doubt that a Mayor could not issue any kind of license that the state legislature had deemed improper or illegal. This was a slam dunk, procedurally, as at no point in this legal analysis was the constitutionality of the law challenged directly.

Now, when a gay couple does challenge the constitutionality of the law, I would think they'll win under equal protection analysis, but the next step (considering the lowness of the CA repugs) will be a state constitutional amendment.

[truthspeaker]

4. a battle lost but we will prevail

I strongly suspect what we saw this year was just the beginning of a sweeping change.

[genius]

5. A lot of gays have voted Republican. The Republicans have stacked

the CA Supreme Court.

[Pachamama]

21. True, and the CA Supremes haven't ruled on Gay Marriage, just the Mayor's

authority to have issued these licenses....the legal challenges to the constitutionality of banning same sex marriages hasn't been heard yet....I firmly believe they will rule as the Mass. court did....

[Swamp Rat]

24. I hope so.

I'm sick to my stomach about these Nazi-Americans that want to oppress select groups. They even want to codify their bigotry it in OUR Constitution! :mad:

[Frodo]

23. How did they "stack the court"??

I know that California has (surprisingly) had a long string of Republican governors, but doesn't the state Senate have a consent role? Haven't they been HEAVILY Democratic for decades now?

[Almost_there]

29. I thought Freepers hated CA courts..

I don't know if this court is Republican or not, I actually think that their ruling was simply on the legal action, and that seems to be totally neutral. They actually almost invited challenges to the law banning gay marriage, so, perhaps they aren't as right wing as feared. If they ruled that all the marriages were just fine, and nothing the mayor did was wrong, they would basically nullify themselves for misinterpreting the law, which is pretty clear, I think.

:shrug:

~Almost

[Frodo]

33. There's some difference between the state and federal courts

The 9th circuit (Federal) court is HQd there in CA, but covers most of the western part of the country. They are without a doubt the most "liberal" of the federal appeals courts (and they have a pretty high percentage of their decisions overturned by the USSC).

But the CA Supreme Court is a STATE court appointed by the Gvoernor of CA (the 9th circuit is appoint by the President). They MAY lean left (just judging from the more progressive population that makes up California), but there have been an awful lot of Republican Governors running California over the last few decades. They are likely to be FAR more conservative than the 9th circuit is.

[Almost_there]

35. Good point, Frodo...

That is true, Frodo, I was just thinking that since CA is such a progressive state (although I don't know about San Diego.. is that a conservative city?) the courts should be leaning to the left as it were... we'll see what happens.

~Almost

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

78. We had a Democratic governor for only 5 out of the last 20 years

How do you figure?

[okieinpain]

30. thank you. and there are quite a few of them.

should be surprised. what I don't understand is why do gay people vote repug. do taxes really go down under repug admin's.

[Surf Cowboy]

38. Gays who vote Republican are just shooting themselves in the foot

or weiner, whichever.

[Pachamama]

52. I know several "married" CA Log Cabin Republicans...wonder what they

are thinking today? I don't think its "lets vote Bush"....figuratively and literally....

[cboy4]

41. I'm not so convinced "a lot" of gays have

voted Republican unless your view of
a lot is even just one person. In
that case I would agree.

[NewJerseyDem]

6. It appears to be unanimous to ban future same-sex marriages in CA

However, two of the justices, Kennard and Werdegar, dissented in the idea of voiding the marriages performed in San Francisco.

[NewJerseyDem]

11. However, this doesn't apply to the constitutionality of the ban

It only applies to the idea on whether Newson had the ability to grant same-sex marriages. A constitutional challenge is under way, I believe, and that will come before the Supreme Court in the coming months. Jeffrey Toobin on CNN says a decision will come in the fall.

[Pachamama]

22. Don't count on that....this was merely a procedural ruling on authority

This court will most likely go the way of MA Supreme Court....I firmly believe that....

[Almost_there]

27. Is it the court or the legislature and people?

The problem with having just a court rule one way or the other is that they become "law makers" and not "law interpreters". THe legislation has to take this issue and the people need to see that change is in the air.

~Almost

[Pachamama]

36. Well, its the courts job to determine constitutionality of laws & that is

what they will do...

I believe that the laws as currently written to prohibit same sex marriages by the state are unconstitutional and will be found so by the court. How can we tax citizens and residents and yet deny them the same fundamental rights as "straight/heterosexual" taxpayers? Remember, at one time many states prohibited inter-racial marriage too which was found unconstitutional....

At one time half this country thought slavery was ok too...

[Barret]

61. You are correct

Interracial marriage bans were declared unconstitonal in 1967 in the landmark Loving v Virginia case.

Also in Craig V. Boren (1976) the court ruled

“To withstand constitutional challenge, previous cases establish that classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.”

There was another case in Zabloki v. Redhail (1978) in which the court ruled

“The leading decision of this Court on the right to marry is Loving v. Virginia (1967). In that case, an interracial couple who had been convicted of violating Virginia's miscegenation laws challenged the statutory scheme on both equal protection and due process grounds. The Court's opinion could have rested solely on the ground that the statutes discriminated on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. But the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry.”

and the opinion of the court went on to say that

“Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.“

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barret]

46. Oh christ

First of all the "people" added section 308.5 to the CA Family Code. (read: NOT part of the CA constitution)

The CA Constitution states that all people shall be treated equally under the law. In fact it reads

"SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation. "

and further reads

"(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked."

I'm pretty sure you could argue GLBT people to be "class of citizens" as well as heterosexual people to be "class of citizens". Therefore constitutionally it is HIGHLY likely 308.5 is unconstitutional. In fact if I was fortunate enough to be the attorney representing them this is exactly how I would present it. VERY solid case.

In a free nation we can NOT allow the majority to suppress the rights of a minority unless they have an overriding and legit reason to do so. Quite frankly in this regard I don't give a damn if 99% of people think the person with one arm should be denied the ability to marry because they personally don't like his one arm or if 1% of the people think so.

This is why the courts are here. Ever wonder why so many judges serve life terms or failing that VERY long terms, as well as the fact they are appointed? Notice in the constitution as well it says a judge may NOT have his/her pay lowered? Wonder why? It's because the founders WANTED them to be independent of what the majority of people wanted. They even wanted them to be independent of the legislature and provided constitutionally their pay may NOT be reduced because they feared it could be used by the legislature to influence them.

The founders didn't want a judge deciding rather or not something was constitutional worrying about rather or not it was popular with the mob outside and thus could effect them in an election. That's why the justices on the supreme court serve life terms.

Yet the right doesn't understand this. They are pissed the founders designed the courts in way they could not easily influence and control. (precisely to STOP people like them from doing so)

The courts are constitutionally required to provide equal protection under the law per the 14th amendment. END OF STORY. No statue or "peoples vote" (mob vs an extreme minority vote) overrides the constitution. That pisses off the bigots, just like it pissed of the Klan and other racists a few decades ago.

You want people to be able to vote the rights down of minorities or cry the courts are "law makers"? Then go repeal the 14th amendment and any similar amendment in any state. Until then the courts will insure equal protection under the law as they are CONSTITUONALLY REQUIRED to do.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

7. Time for some major lawsuits...

right?

[Not Me]

8. what's next? A challenge to the state constitution?

The court maintained that Gavin Newsom did not have the authority to issue the licenses without a specific judicial ruling stating that the consitutional rights of the parties were denied.

It looks like that is the next battle in CA.

[Pachamama]

28. Challenges have been filed and more to come....City of SF already filed

I saw Gavin Newsom at a fundraiser the other night for a project I'm working on (1000 Flowers http://www.1000flowers.org ) and thanked him again for this...he knew that the licenses and ceremonies would be struck down due to procedure, but he did this to send the message to the world and he was successful and accomplished what he set out to do...I'm so proud of him....that was a wonderful and brave thing to do for the rights of our citizens and families....

[realFedUp]

9. Hope they don't have to give the gifts back....

sorry, I always find the humorous in dark situations....

[Rose Siding]

10. What are the "applicable" statutory provisions?

Is there law written in CA defining the required genders of a marriage?

[NewJerseyDem]

13. I believe so

There was an initiative passed to limit marriage to between a man and a woman in CA.

[Almost_there]

14. I think it was around the "Defense of Marriage Act" time..

I am pretty sure that the CA voters took this one up on a referendum and passed it, I don't think it was a law passed by legislature, I believe it was a voted upon amendment to the CA constitution. The next step is to see if that amendment actually is legal or if it is contrary to the CA Constitution itself.

~Almost

[Frodo]

25. How does that work? An Amendment CAN'T be contrary to the document

It could be ruled unconstitutional under the US Constitution, but an Amendment IS the constitution.

[Pachamama]

43. Prop 22 in CA was not an amendment to the CA State Constitution

It was a cleverly worded proposition added to the ballot and presented in such a way that many voters were "snookered" into voting for it not realizing its implications to their fellow citizens, neighbors, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters of California...I know atleast 20 people who voted for it (Republicans as well as Dems) who when given the opportunity to vote on the issue will not support such a "law"....meanwhile, the heavily democratic state legislature of CA will move in the right direction, but they will wait till after the Presidential election and it will be up for vote next year. But who knows the CA Supremes may come through before that.

[Swamp Rat]

44. Frodo, are you FOR an amendment to our Constitution?

Would you, personally, like to see an amendment to ban gay people from getting married?

[Frodo]

53. I'm internaly divided on the matter.

I even know some homosexuals who are against the idea.

I'm not opposed to the "fence sitting" solution many in the party have supported which is "civil unions". Give people the rights they need, but not the same "title". It's not particularly attractive to either side, but that's what compromise is all about.

But part of the problem is that I'm a "flaming" heterosexual and I understand very little about the whole thing. Frankly, I don't "get" it. I've never understood how a male could NOT be atttacted to women when they have so much going for them and we're so "blah". Similarly, I've never understood ANY attraction to men (though I also don't understand how the women are attracted to us either).

[Pachamama]

66. I understand how come Men are attracted to Men.....

Pachamama thinks Men are delicious :9

But the real point Frodo, is that its not for you to understand or agree with for that matter. Some people like to be spanked in sex (try it some time) :spank: and others like role-playing....what someone does in their sexual life shouldn't play any role in determining right or wrong, assuming its consensual and not with a minor. Taking away or denying rights to someone based on their sexual preferences is just plain wrong.

You say you know homosexuals who are against the idea of gay marriage - I highly question that....If indeed this is true, I think what they are really "against" is the issue being battled out in a crucial election year out of fear of the issue being used POLITICALLY to split and divide people. Show me someone who is opposed to two people who love eachother wanting to make a loving committment and have equal rights as tax paying citizens and I'll show you a fascist and someone who is hateful.

On Edit: Oh darn, I wanted post # 69 :)

[Swamp Rat]

71. I thought it was normal for men to be attracted to men...

and women to be attracted to women. Some perversion of nature has taken place where people, especially in this country, have gotten the idea that heterosexual relations are the only normal relations. Mind you, lots of those folks are VERY GAY, but in total denial.

[Frodo]

75. If that were true...

there wouldn't BE that many gay people. There wouldn't be that many PEOPLE.

If nothing else, gay six is not particularly....um... "productive". :-)

[Swamp Rat]

80. What is "gay six?"

Not necessarily: gay men procreate all the time, and both sexes are bi-sexual but lean one way or another. Take that into account and you still have a high birth rate.

[Frodo]

84. ok

I guess I could make a pilot joke about "sixes" and spin that in to something sexual...


But I'd rather just admit the typo. :hi:

[Pachamama]

86. It's when you, me and 4 other of our friends decide to have fun :)

:grouphug:

[Swamp Rat]

88. REALLY???

Sex with six people?! WOW! Sounds like a 1970s porno! :wow:

[Pachamama]

85. Well, I'm the product of Lesbians with the use of sperm....and I'm

currently reproducing with a man of the opposite sex and making Pachababies....

So, how do we explain that one? I mean the reality, is that if everyone was Gay tommorrow, we could still keep having babies in our wombs and having sex with whom we want to, right? I mean even though Rick Santorum thinks sex is purely for procreation, some of us have discovered otherwise....

I mean look at me - Gay parents - and I'm straight....and I'm reproducing....and my kids might be gay and then decide to still be parents and then their kids, my grand-pachababies might be straight and reproduce and so on and so on...

I don't think the world's population will decline....and with science, it's become real easy.... :hi:

[Swamp Rat]

89. Rick Santorum is gay.

It WILL come out someday.

We're all bi-sexual. We're born that way. Later on, we "lean" one way or another and often switch for a variety of reasons.

[TaleWgnDg]

99. ummmmmmmmm . . .

Rick Santorum??? -----> :hurts: (as in anal retentive)

[Frodo]

92. That would be "NOW". I said "if it WERE true".

Artificial insemination is not exactly an ancient science. We've done it for quite some time, but at some point in the past, two people had to have sex.

Sure, we cold say that we could "live with that" two or three times in a lifetime and the race could still survive... but I think the argument was a tongue-in-cheek claim that people were naturally gay and only pretended to be hetero. The evidence seems to point in a different direction

[Frodo]

73. But marriage is not defined by sexual activity.

You don't have to perform a particular act in order to be "married".

BTW - I have four young kids, I'm not prepared to think of spanking in a sexual way thankyouverymuch.

As for homosexuals who are against the idea? Yes, I know plenty who are subordinating their desires for the cause of winning an election (I'm of two minds on THAT idea as well). But I meant it just the way it sounds. Now, I may not be using the right language so forgive me... but as I understand it, they think the gay "lifestyle" is one that is to some extent "counter" to current society. That to tie one's self down (let's not go THERE, ok?) to what society expects by getting "married" for "life" is NOT what they want. They have no desire to "fit in" or be "accepted". It's a bit like the "goth" or "punk" thing. People WANT to be dressed outside of the norm. If the "norm" were changed to fit their lifestyle, they would be forced to change to be back outside the group. Plenty of gays are NOT "monogamous" and don't want to be. Sure, plenty of straight people have the same sexual wanderlust, but they call that being "single".

[Swamp Rat]

82. I saw that South Park episode

What about "metrosexuals?" ... if that's what it's called.

[Pachamama]

91. Ain't that the truth - I had more sex before marriage - w/ my now husband

...I think its the kid thingy....oh well, we try too...Yeah, now marriage is defined by the kid thingy....which by the way - is one of the many reasons that the gay people I know want to be married - to raise a family and have a "marriage"...

You see Frodo, its okay if you don't want to have "spankings" for sexual pleasuring...some people find it exciting...doesn't make it wrong to like it or not like it....and it shouldn't affect their rights as citizens to be equal...

For the record, my "Moms" looked like Catherine Deneuve and Catherine Zeta-Jones, and had men flirting and asking them out left and right....They "fit" in just perfectly and guess what - if you saw me, Pachamama a petite blonde driving her station wagon in suburbia, you'd think I could be Rick Santorom's Poster Girl for the American Family....must be the Catholic Girl thingy I've got going....:)

Oh and for the record - a lot of straight heterosexual men who are married, not single, are not "monogamous"...that is a bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage, n'est pas?

[Cronus Protagonist]

114. Actually, they call that "swinging" and "wife swapping" too

Your arguments are hollow, you cherry-pick your arguments, and you generalize about a whole group of people.

I think that's the very definition of bigotry, but what do I know, I subscribe to the Gay Agenda....

http://cronus.com/agenda

[cboy4]

70. With all due respect, You could have stuck with

your first paragraph of thought and I would have said
while I disagree, your position is fair enough all
things considered.

But your babble (I know you were trying to be funny, not hateful)
about not understanding why
people are gay simply plays into the ridiculous
notion of those who scream at the top of their
lungs that being gay is a choice.

[Frodo]

81. No no no. I meant it more literally than that.

I meant I don't "get it". I didn't mean I have no sympathy for people with a different bent than my own. I'm saying that when I see a romance on TV (hetero), I "emote" (if that's a word) with the characters even though I'm not personally in love with the woman. It doesn't "click" for me when it's two guys. That's all.

To the extent it's NOT a choice, my "wiring" doesn't have a complete circuit on these conversations. I don't happen to believe my bent is a "choice" either. I was just admitting that I'm less "in touch" with the issue because it is so foreign to me personally.

[cboy4]

93. Fine, you don't get it, but....

how do people of the same sex getting married
really affect your life?

Since you say you don't understand, I would encourage you to do the research -- not
why some guys/gals are attracted to other guys/gals, but
why there's an important difference between
rights of marriage and rights of a civil unions.

[Frodo]

97. As I understand the proposal. The only difference is the name.

You get all the rights of a married couple (insurance, community property, inheritance, whatever), with a different name.

I'd see it as splitting hairs for both sides. I can't imagine why EITHER side CARES so much about what it's CALLED. Call it a "tomato" if you want, who cares?


And I don't think same-sex couples getting married will affect my life at all (except maybe raise my health insurance rates a tad)

[Swamp Rat]

76. But what about corrupting our Constitution?

Frodo, how do you feel about a certain group of people, regardless of whether they're in the majority or not, that want to amend our Constitution?

Doesn't that bother you?

[Frodo]

90. ??? You're kidding, right?

If I had a problem with people ammending the Constitution then I would be against women or minorities voting. I would be against free speech? I would be against almost all of the things that make our country great.

How could I possibly be against a group of people WANTING to amend the constitution. The bar is set awfully high on that and it can't possibly happen WITHOUT a significant majority. This is the way it's SUPPOSED to happen. If they feel they are in the right but the constitution doesn't read that way? Don't go to court and hope someone will interpret it out of existence. Go through the process to amend it. If you can get 2/3 votes in congress AND 2/3 of the state legislatures to agree with you? More power to ya.

The constitution is in place to protect the rights of the MINORITY, but that doesn't go so far as "minority rules". It simply sets a very high threshold for those wanting to change the rules at that level.

[Swamp Rat]

95. OK, let me ask you this

What if a certain group of people succeeds in amending our Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights of certain American citizens? Doesn't THAT bother you?

I remember now that I had a similar question for you when we were discussing voting rights. You still haven't answered my question as to why you think it is democratic to disenfranchise people on the basis of "inadequate mental competence." The key word in this question is "democratic." How is disenfranchisement of voting rights of adult, American citizens democratic? How is "disenfranchisement" of gay folks that want to marry, equal treatment under the law? Isn't that in the Constitution?

edited: because Swam Rats are bad grammarians.

[Frodo]

113. Ahhh. I see.

I guess it would depend on whether you agree that is what's happening. You would be arguing that they currently HAVE the right to marry (we just haven't realized it yet). That's a tough sell.

But in the abstract, yes. I would be disturbed by ANY situation where the Constitution is amended away from my core principles. Prohibition is a good example (since it actually happened). I don't drink (well, say 4-5 drinks), but I don't agree with making it illegal. I would have been upset if that happened in my lifetime. But I would recognize it as the law of the land and try to amend it the other way (which is not only the CORRECT remedy, it's what happened).

As for the other debate I don't agree. People often try to talk about how things "ought" to be by saying "isn't this a DEMOCRACY!?!?". I'm not going to make RW argument that it's "not a democracy". But whatever it IS, is found in our governing documents - don't take the abstract term and define reality from what you think it means... we KNOW what it means. In this case, we say you can't vote until you are 18. The fact that YOU feel you were competent to vote at 10 (you would be surprised how many think so), doesn't mean that's the way it should be. We have a definition of competency to vote. In this case, it's 18 and some mental level. That's fine with me.

ANY reasonable standard is fine with me as long as the priority is the good of the republic. If the goal is to remove all Irish from the voting pool, it doesn't matter if the rule sounds reasonable otherwise. At one point you had to be a land-owner... that guarantees a vested interest in the government of the time... that makes sense.

If they wanted to do away with all income tax and replace it with a poll tax? OK, if you want to influence public policy, PAY for it (that assumes of course a roughly equal income - which we don't have).

Better yet, Heinlein's theory of mandatory service to win the franchise. Serve your country (military, police, fire, government, whatever) for two or three years in order to earn a vote. Again, if you want to influence public policy, PAY for it.


Voting ought to be HARD. I showed up for the primaries a few weeks ago and left almost in tears. I had researched the congressional, Senate, and gubernatorial candidates but I'm new to the state. I didn't realize HOW MANY other positions I needed to vote on. I have an OBLIGATION to know these people and vote for the right one and was embarrassed to be in a polling place without having carries out my civic duty. Again, it should be HARD. Anyone who really wants to should be able to vote, but you should demonstrate that you are the descendants (theologically, not biologically) of the men who devoted their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor(s)" to their country. The women who endured torture to WIN the right to vote. Who recognized how IMPORTANT it was. THAT's where we got off track, you and I. A ten year old doesn't have that, and (other issues aside) a rapist or murderer or multiple assault felon has demonstrated that HE doesn't have it either.

[drmom]

109. Frido, The thing about being gay is that I feel just like you do, but

in reverse...I'm a woman and can't imagine being attracted to a man. I've been attracted to woman for as long as I can remember. I know as a child I thought that this is just how everyone was, but that at some point your mind "switched" to liking the opposite gender. (But that never happened to me!)

I think the point is that we all have to be opened minded and accept each person is unique, with unique feelings and experiences. I can't begin to make decisions about personal matters for other people, and I don't expect them to make decision for me. Once we understand that there is no universal way of experiencing life, we, as a society might realize that "Hey, just because I wouldn't do it that way doesn't mean that way is wrong".

[Swamp Rat]

110. I agree with you except one thing

"Once we understand that there is no universal way of experiencing life..." It's a fact that there are established human universals recognized by many scientific fields: eating, sleeping, loving, religion, etc.

Sorry if I am nit picking on this one because another important biological universal is that we develop with an undetermined sex for a period. We are all probably bi-sexual, but I don't have the expertise to speak on this definitively.

[Barret]

51. Wrong

It was NOT an amendment to the CA constitition. It added section 308.5 to the California code. The CA Code is NOT the california constitution.

[Frodo]

55. Hey, I was responding to a post that said it was an amendment,

and I was simply saying it then couldn't be reviewed against the state constitution because it would BE the state constitution.


If it was just a law, of course it COULD be overturned. Interesting that they took a pass at the law.

[Barret]

65. They had to

because the case brought before them asked the question "Was Newsom exceeding his authority?" and thus that is what they had to rule on. The question was not "Is 308.5 constitional?"

[Frodo]

67. I wouldn't say that/

Ok, he "exceeded his authority"....

But that begs the question: "HOW?"

Well, because there's a state law that says so. If he DIDN'T exceed his authority, it's because the law is not valid and can not bind him. If it CAN bind him, it must be valid. You can't really say "you don't have the authority to disobey an unconstitutional law" just lilke they can't keep you in prison for violating a law that turnes out to be unconstitutional.

It's two sides of the same coin. But they dodged looking at the other side.

[Barret]

72. Wrong

Here is "how".

He essentially decided HIM SELF that 308.5 was in conflict with the CA Constitution.

THIS is how he exceeded his authority. It is NOT up to a member of the executive to decide what is and is not constitutional.

That was ALL that was ruled on. The court did NOT rule rather or not 308.5 was constitutional.

Your logic is not at all the logic of law or of the court I can assure you. (the "If it can bind him then it must be valid")

[Frodo]

87. I think you missed it

If the law is unconstitutional (and it either IS or it IS NOT regardless of whether it has been ruled on or not) then it is NOT minding on the mayor. Just like an officer can't be jailed for failing to follow an illegal order, even if it adn't been declared illegal at the time he disobeyed it. The decision is retroactively valid.

If they had decided he WAS within his rights to disobey the law, they would HAVE to have found the law to be unconstitutional.


They took the same dodge the USSC in Bush/Gore. "I'm going to decide on this case, but not on the law". It's a dodge. But they couldn't have ruled the otehr way without overturning the law.

[Almost_there]

64. If the law is contrary to the CA constitution...

All that it would take is a simple challenge to the law, 308.5 of the California Code as you have twice pointed out to nullify the law, right? Or is it not that simple?

I am not sure what is required to dump the law, but, if the court voided the marriages, were they basing their ruling on 308.5 of the Family Code, or, some other aspect of California law? If it was ONLY on 308.5, then all that needs to be done is someone challenge the constitutionality of the law pertaining to the CA constitution itself, right?

However, I don't know if it is that simple, but, it might be. I just don't know. If there is something else IN the constitution that could be interpreted to read that marriage is between a man and a woman, then that brings a whole new wrinkle in. I'm just playing devil's advocate, but, I think all bases need to be covered.

~Almost

[Barret]

69. Yes it is that simple

"All that it would take is a simple challenge to the law, 308.5 of the California Code as you have twice pointed out to nullify the law, right? Or is it not that simple? "

308.5 will be challenged under the states constitution which is in conflict with it. In fact, cases have already been brought before a lower court in San Fran this year to address that question.

"I am not sure what is required to dump the law, but, if the court voided the marriages, were they basing their ruling on 308.5 of the Family Code, or, some other aspect of California law?"

The court based its ruling on the question of rather or not Mayor Newsom exceeded his authority because that was the complaint brought before them. (that he had) The court found that he did indeed exceed his authority, and thus had grounds to nullify anything he did in exceeding his authority (i.e. the marriages).

" If there is something else IN the constitution that could be interpreted to read that marriage is between a man and a woman, then that brings a whole new wrinkle in."

No, there is not. The CA constitution contains nothing that could even be remotely construed as defining marriage between two people of different sex.

[Almost_there]

96. It is that simple? Then why worry?

I am not sure what you mean, "its that simple". If it was such a simple little piddling thing, why are we bothering with this ruling, with this discussion, with these laws? I am just concerned that it ISN'T as simple as you seem to make it out to be.

"Well, just overturn the law". Oh, ok. No problem there, we'll take care of that before lunch tomorrow. If anyone even THINKS that this is going to just get resolved nice and easy, go right ahead, think that, know that you're on the "right" side, and don't worry about protesting, getting your voice heard, or anything, because Barret has assured us all that it is that simple.

This ruling just nullified 4,000 marriages and has essentially given a victory to the right. If you think that it's "that simple", don't worry about it, let things run their course, and I'm sure that everyone that wants to marry will have no obstacles once that unconstituitional law is removed, no problem.

I am not one to think anything is in the bag. Remember an election we had in 2000? Don't think this will just "get resolved" nice and easily.

~Almost

[Barret]

101. <sigh>

Well I don't mean it's that simple in that it won't require any effort. The right will be putting up a hell of a fight.

"why are we bothering with this ruling, with this discussion, with these laws?"

Well we bothered with this ruling because the right brought a complaint before the court. The complaint was legit - Newsom did exceed his authority.

The right didn't win anything here. The REAL win/lose is going to be decided when the court decides the constitutionality.

Frankly - the ONLY way I see the right stopping this is 1. Amending the CA constitution OR 2. Stopping it at the federal level. (which, as we have seen, is highly unlikely).

So in other words the right is fucked. That doesn't mean it won't be a bitter fight to the end, but IMO we have this in the bag.

[FreeState]

15. Prop 22 (Pete Knight) in 2001(?) CA version of DOMA N/T

[ronnykmarshall]

58. He's dead too.

:nopity:

[Cronus Protagonist]

115. FYI - Here's a resurrection of the Prop22 web site

I just happen to have it on file :)

http://cronus.com/prop22

Enjoy :)


SHOVE IT! - Drop Bush Not Bombs! - Hero Kerry AWOL Bush
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[Barret]

49. Yes

Section 308.5 CA Family Code. Please note this is NOT part of the California constitution (thus inferior to it) - and no section of the constitution defines marriage.

[Almost_there]

12. Sadly, the courts almost had to vote this way...

I think the courts were hamstrung as to what they could do, since CA already had the law of marriage as defined by the Defense of Marriage Act as between a man and a woman. The court had little leeway, at least as far as I could tell. However, the city, mayor and people won't just give up, it takes time and energy to make a change and this was an AWESOME first step. The battle needs to be won in the courts, in the legislature, and in people's hearts and minds.

~Almos

[Barret]

54. Nope

This was a procedural ruling. The court did NOT rule on the constitutionality of 308.5.

The CA constitution stands in sharp contrast to section 308.5 CA Family Code (added by prop 22 in which the voters voted on). Unless the CA constitution is amended it is HIGHLY likely 308.5 will be ruled unconstitutional.

I really hope people in the future will actually learn about the topic at hand before making statments about it...

[Almost_there]

100. Thank you, oh great one.

Sorry I haven't come to you for advice before, you are obvisouly all knowing and all powerful. I apologize for my misstatement about the amendment, this is obviously (as stated now multiple times by you) the California Code 308.5 (page number?).

I believe the intent of my post was that the court had to rule this way because the issue of if the California Code 308.5 was NOT at hand, but, if in fact the Mayor had indeed stepped outside of the law as written, and in fact, it was pretty black and white that he did.

I would liken this to an official handing out Marijuana to people in clear violation of existing codes. This ruling wasn't about the law itself, but, was a ruling if the law was broken, and it clearly was. The next step would be to challenge the law itself. The California Code 308.5, I believe you or someone almost as brilliant and insightful (though much less arrogant) has pointed out was passed as a vote by the people and signed off on by the legislature. So, as you pointed out before, to everyone's enlightenment, the simple thing would be to ust get the law revoked. Nice 'n easy.

I also hope in the future you can lower yourself from your perch on high and join us plebes in a discussion. However, I will understand if I must make this request in writing.

This is what is known as a "discussion forum". I am NOT from California, I don't pretend to know all of the laws, most of my statements should reflect "I think", "I believe", or "does anyone know?".

~Almost

[LynneSin]

16. Thank goodness they finally did this!!!!!

I mean, my life was a wreck, my job was going downhill, my relationships were all out of sorts and my cat was piddling in spots where he shouldn't piddle.

Then I realized this was all happening to me because San Francisco left them there gay folks get married

:crazy:

[yellowcanine]

34. Yes, Western Civilization as we know it is saved. All of those folks

will leave their gay lovers and go back to their hetero mates and the American family is safe once again. All is well, my son. RIGHT has prevailed over.....left?

[Pachamama]

50. Nope America - Bob & Bill are still together and so are Susi and Sally

Nothing's changed....just bigotry and a whole lot of fear of gay rights and sadly, them trying to take citizen's rights away and further deny them equal rights.

[Pachamama]

47. I know what your saying! My husband was a wreck knowing that Gay

couples had so much more fun shopping together than he and I, and he knew that was a threat to our marriage...and they dressed better than him....

(sarcasm off)

Please America, do you all really believe what couples decided to do in their bedrooms affects your marriages or families? Me thinks not.....I'm living proof..... :hi:

[TaleWgnDg]

103. hot damn!! piddling cats due to . . .

gay marriage? egads!!! what color is the Homeland Security warning thingie now? LOL

[Swamp Rat]

106. Amber... the color of Ashcroft's wig when he cross-dresses

[TaleWgnDg]

123. good one !!!

:toast:

[FredScuttle]

17. So let me guess

* and all the insane fundie GOPers don't regard this court as "activist judges"?

a battle lost, but the war rages on...

[Nile]

31. Not activist judges.

They were just upholding the law.

[Barret]

57. The battle is NOT over

this was only a ruling that Newsom exceeded his authority.

Litigation has already been initiated in the lower courts to decide the constitutionality - which is the NEXT step and TOTALLY seperate from what the ruling of today was.

The CA Supremes will likely rule on the constitutionality of 308.5 in 1-2 years.

[ProfessorGAC]

60. That Seems A Pretty Convenient Interpretation, No?

Legislating from the bench is what they call it. Why is this different? The city of SF decided that this was their new law. A panel of judges said no, they can't have that law.

You call it upholding the law. But, when Roe v Wade was decided, that wasn't upholding the law? When Warren and the court decided on Brown v. BOE, and folks wanted Warren impeached, weren't they just upholding the law?

When does it become judicial activism and when is it conveniently upholding the law?
The Professor

[Barret]

79. Unfortunately with many people

it becomes "activism" whenever a court rules in a manner they do not agree with.

The court was right to rule that Newsom exceeded his authority. (he did) Keep in mind though the court did not rule on 308.5's constitutionality. That one is in the lower courts at the moment soon to be moving up....

[ProfessorGAC]

83. That's My Point

Courts always just rule on the law. When the braindead disagree, they call it judicial activism. When it goes their way, it's ok.

I considered your original post to be a convenient piece of rhetoric. Your reply to me shows you can go beyond the merely convenient, so i assumed your first post to be a grenade, in error.
The Professor

[GRClarkesq]

18. This was expected and not that important

The real showdown will be at the California Supreme Court. Appropriate for the lower court not to stick its neck out when the a ruling from the highest court is in the near future.

This battle may be won in the courts, but it would be better if it were won in the legislature (or referendum, since its CA).

[sui generis]

20. it was entirely unnecessary for them to void the marriages

that was discretionary and they did not exercise discretion; the same judges would also advocate removing adopted children from same-sex parents no matter what the emotional cost.

This is atrocious: those little ugly people would try to invalidate what is arguably the happiest day of someone's life in a relationship.

FUCK the uptight assholes in California (not the good guys) who have stolen the state. My response is not sadness, it's deep and intense anger.

California, shame on you for making some Americans less American today, you closeminded bigoted unpatriotic pricks.

[Almost_there]

26. But the courts left things open...

They basically had to void the marriages, since they declared what the mayor did as against the law, what he did de facto became null and void. However, the court left open a gaping hole saying that they did not address the constitutionality of the law stating that a marriage is only between a man and a woman.

I think they essentially said "according to the law now, this is the way it is. HOWEVER, the law itself may not be legal". Since that wasn't the issue, they couldn't rule on it. The next steps are being taken, you can't expect to win a fight like this in the first round with a huge knock out. It is called a "struggle" for a reason. Keep up the good fight!!

~Almost

[Pachamama]

32. Just the Paper - Those people are still married and will still be married

tommorrow, the day after etc....

The right wingnuts who are trying to stop these citizens from having their rights will never ever succeed at stopping these people from loving eachother and being "married"....

Yes, shame on those that try to oppose gay marriage and prohibit equal rights to all US citizens that are taxpayers...

But this was just a procedural ruling....I still believe we will win the big prize....

[DaveSZ]

40. The Mass SC was Republican

3 of the 4 who voted to legalize gay marriage were Republican.

[cboy4]

39. Praise Jesus!

Now the stock market is going to recover...
The record deficit is going to disappear,
U.S. soldiers will stop getting killed in Iraq,
We will go from a net loss of jobs to a gain,
Haliburton will stop F'ing taxpayers,
And, of course, the right wing fundamentalist Christian extremist nuts (a very redundant description I know) will STILL NOT BE HAPPY because they will never be satisfied until we become, in effect, a police state of religion. :mad: :argh: :hurts:

I don't necessarily blame the court...instead I blame the hate-mongers from the right who can only win by spreading lies and fear. It is despicable. Oh I'm mad. :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Bluebear]

45. American Christianity pushed me from religion altogether

I see on some boards the Christians actually cheering this decision, cheering watching people cry. I can understand ideology and faith, I can't understand how people would get a sadistic joy out of this decision.

[Swamp Rat]

48. I hear ya bro!

Sadists.

[Bluebear]

56. Thanks for the shout.

Glad I'm not the only one who senses it.

[niceperson]

42. that's so sad

eom

[Pachamama]

59. Those Whores on CNN just cut-off Gavin Newsom's press conference

as he started taking on Dimwit and the Right wings attack on our constitution and the discrimination....I'm able to watch it live on local TV here in the Bay Area, but its not surprising....it's called censorship....

[Swamp Rat]

68. Grrr!!!

:mad:

[Pachamama]

74. Yep, literally cut him off as he started to mention Bu$h & Discrimination

...too bad because Gavin is very well spoken (reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton's communication abilities) and is very, very smart. What a lot of people don't know is that Gavin Newsom's dad is a former CA Judge who is well liked and respected in CA....I know his Dad too and he's been also advising his son....

Watch out America....Gavin Newsom, Pachamama and all the gay couples are coming at ya! You might be able to cut us off when we speak on CNN, but we are still here and guess what....we are reproducing....in fact, most gays, basically actually every gay person I know was born to Heterosexual couples....hmmmm.... :eyes:

[cboy4]

62. And isn't it telling and fascinating how so many people

seemingly appear more angry and terrified about
gay people getting married than the assault weapon
ban expiring in a month or so?!?!?!

Then again, I'm sure if any of these
right-wingers' kids get shot up at their
school with an AK-47, they'll find a way
to blame the gays.

"It is the gays who are bringing down
civilization..."

I just heard on the news oil prices hit a record
high today. I, for one, blame the gays.

[slackmaster]

77. Gay marriage is a MUCH more important issue for all of us

Left or right, liberal or conservative, straight or gay, GOP or Democrat.

FYI, expiration of the AW ban next month, which now appears inevitable, will have no foreseeable effect on public safety because when it took effect in 1994 gun manufacturers kept on making the same weapons with minor, mostly cosmetic modifications. If you want an AW ban that's fine, go ahead and work towards it but do not be afraid of September 13. Nothing important will change.

The gay marriage issue potentially affects tens of millions of US citizens. From the perspective of the 4,000+ couples who availed themselves of San Francisco's issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, they've been used as pawns. A marriage license is a solemn contract between two people and society.

Governments that change their minds and reneg on licenses cannot be trusted. Today's decision may have been inevitable, but I hope all public officials think hard about the distrust in government that will result from the mixed message.

[havocmom]

63. Right wing activist judges are the REAL threat to marriage!

So why get married if a judge can make null and void the public acknowledgment of commitment and social contract between two consenting adults and their community?

The real threat against marriage rests in American courthouses.

[Pachamama]

94. I wish they hadn't nullified those marriages, I think they had no choice

Ironically, and it was explained to me by a lawyer friend the other night, (and since I'm no lawyer - I won't attempt to explain it) is that if they had allowed these to "stand" that they would have prevented those people from filing discrimination lawsuits (which will eventually help them if ruled in their favor) and it could have brought into question some procedural authorities.

The real threat fellow mommy is not the courthouses, but the right wing politicians thumping their bibles that want to appoint judges to alter or deviate from our constitution....

[enigmatic]

98. This is sad, but expected...

this is just a minor bump; gays will have the right to marry very soon, as well they should..

[Pachamama]

102. Whoa! The Governor of NJ just declared he is Gay! Watch out everyone

they (the gays) are everywhere....even married with wife!

Interesting to see this announcement right after this discussion thread.....

[Swamp Rat]

104. SEE!!!

It's only a matter of time before Rick Santorum show up to work in a dress.

[Pachamama]

120. Hey, don't go insulting Transgenders or Cross dressers....

Santorum isn't welcome in those communities....I don't even think the box turtles will welcome him....

:kick:

[Swamp Rat]

122. I wish they would all come out of the closet already!

Then we'd have a much more peaceful society.

[DaveSZ]

105. The AWB is only cosmetic for the most part

Lee Malvo's rifle was basically the same as before the ban.

[Corkey Mineola]

107. F*CK Them: We're Still Married!

Yea, like some homophobes in robes get to tell ME who to love! We are still MARRIED and we ain't giving back the gifts!

[Swamp Rat]

108. Good for you!

You'll likely improve the marriage to divorce ratio too. So far, it's heterosexuals that have a bad track record.

[Lavender Brown]

111. Keep on fighting

Don't surrender your rights (or your gifts) to ANYONE.

This makes me SO angry. I hope this doesn't happen in Massachusetts too. :(

[slackmaster]

119. I personally support your marriage

Good luck with the IRS and Franchise Tax Board next April if you decide to file as Married Filing Jointly.

BTW nice avatar.

[Pachamama]

121. Yeah! Your married and still living together and there is nothing they

can do to stop it....Just because that piece of paper isn't recognized "currently" in CA, it doesn't mean if changes who you love and who you are....

The battle has only begun...my two dearest friends are in a marriage which at one time would have been "illegal" according to law (she is black, he's white)....many of the same arguments were made then that the homophobic opponents make to same-sex marriage....

I'm sorry that this day had to come, but its just the beginning of the battle and I believe its one the far right wingnuts and Bu$h Co. will lose....badly.... :hi:

[Politicub]

112. That's sad

I was watching for the verdict today and was disappointed the judges ruled the way that they did.

It figures. It like we take two steps forward and three steps back for relationship freedom.

[BushLicks]

116. When do we get to INVALIDATE Those Enron & Harken Stock Trades

I just don't understand the American legal system.