Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Prop. 8 Ruling May Lead To Civil Unions For All

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:21 AM
Original message
Prop. 8 Ruling May Lead To Civil Unions For All
Prop. 8 Ruling May Lead To Civil Unions For All

<snip>

The California Supreme Court could decide that there are two kinds of same-sex couples: those who can't get married, and those who already did.

A ruling that upholds both voters' November decision to ban gay marriage and the 18,000 same-sex marriages conducted earlier in California could come off as a safe compromise. But it also promises to keep alive an issue that has split the state as few others have.

Such a decision would give same-sex marriage advocates an avenue to pursue a federal appeal, and an argument for compelling the state to, as Associate Justice Ming Chin put it, "get out of the marriage business."

Justices on the high court appear hesitant to overturn Proposition 8, while also reluctant to invalidate same-sex marriages performed before it passed, legal observers agreed Friday.

During Thursday's oral arguments on a trio of lawsuits seeking to overturn the ban, Chin and Chief Justice Ronald George seemed to anticipate the difficulty in reconciling the state constitution's promise of equality with its commitment to giving voters wide discretion to pass laws.

Chin, who was not part of the court majority that ruled last year to legalize same-sex marriage, twice asked whether the court should direct the state "to employ non-marriage terminology" and instead make only civil unions or domestic partnerships available to all.

Gay-rights lawyers and Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr, who was representing Proposition 8's sponsors, agreed that making marriage the province of religious institutions was one way, however unanticipated, around the problem.

"There is a long tradition of requiring different parts of the California Constitution to be harmonized," said David Cruz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Southern California who is not involved in the case. "It's not necessarily what the voters intended their only clear intent was to stop gay people from getting married."

Although the 14-word measure holds that "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," the justices indicated their discomfort with dissolving the unions of gay and lesbian couples who married before the election.

Having some gay couples allowed to stay married while others are prohibited from saying "I do" would provide legally plausible, if politically debatable, grounds for an appeal under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, according to Cruz.

"If they say Proposition 8 is valid but it doesn't touch existing marriages, what that raises is the fact that there are now these two groups of couples who are treated differently under the law for no functional reason," he said.

California already affords same-sex couples who register as domestic partners all the rights and benefits of marriage. As a practical matter, that means wed and unwed same-sex couples should not have different experiences when it comes to issues such as hospital visitation rights, filing state income taxes or suing for child support.

In reality, though, service providers, employers and public agencies still have a hard time regarding domestic partners as the legal equivalent of married spouses, said Tobias Wolff, a University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor. The confusion is especially great when such couples visit states without similar categories, Wolff said.

"It's very easy to imagine there will be a lack of understanding, that there will be skepticism, that people will be challenged and need to start producing time- and date-stamped copies of their marriage licenses. It's going to create a lot of serious burdens on the couples," he said.

While publicly reluctant to read too much into the court's reception, gay-rights leaders already are preparing for a return to the ballot box to have Proposition 8 repealed. The state's largest gay-rights groups have started raising money, airing television advertisements and recruiting volunteers with an eye toward qualifying a ballot measure in 2012, if not next year.

"They key here is changing social attitudes," said Rick Jacobs, co-founder of the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign. "It would be nice if the Supreme Court comes out with a favorable decision, but we have to go do the work ourselves. That is the real lesson of this."

<snip>

Link: http://cbs5.com/local/california.civil.unions.2.952662....

:shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tsuki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. "gay-rights leaders already are preparing for a return to the ballot box to have Proposition 8
repealed"

They need to frame the question so that it has a YES answer. I once had a politician tell me that a "yes" on a ballot initiative meant a 2-5% advantage.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. I don't know who that politian was but he was directly wrong
no has the advantage. People who are unsure due to little info will tend to vote no, not yes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
2. Why not CIVIL MARRIAGES and RELIGIOUS UNIONS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petronius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. That's a funny idea - wold definitely make some heads explode!
However, I'd prefer 'Civil marriage' and 'Religious whatever-you-want-to-call-it-is-fine-because-it-has-no-legal-significance-whatsoever'.

IANAL, but it seems to me that keeping the term "marriage" across the board is necessary because that terminology is so entrenched in law (federal, other states, etc) and culture already...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Exactly.
I see allowing religions to co-opt the language as dissolving separation between church and state, because we'll suddenly need a priest to sanction our marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dipsydoodle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:54 AM
Response to Original message
3. Is this bit true ?
California already affords same-sex couples who register as domestic partners all the rights and benefits of marriage. As a practical matter, that means wed and unwed same-sex couples should not have different experiences when it comes to issues such as hospital visitation rights, filing state income taxes or suing for child support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Maybe...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Critical rights are not provided.
For example, the fairly automatic right to inherit if there no will (the right to be first on the list, if there is no will).

Domestic partnership rights are not equal to the rights conferred upon civil marriage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galaxy21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
5. I don't think gay marriages are federally recognized in California, are they?
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 10:16 AM by galaxy21
In terms of social security and immigration status, these couples remain unequal. It's complicated, because gay marriage is supposed to be about equal rights, but they still aren't fully equal. At least that's my understanding, but that might not be right.


A gay marriage in California seems to be domestic partnership with the word Marriage. Of course, I still support that because I realize how important the word and commitment that goes with it is to people. So, saying it's mainly about the word and the commitment doesn't diminish it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. No gay marriages performed anywhere are Federally Recognized because of DOMA n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 23rd 2014, 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC