Gay Marriage in California?

[falconfan]

hate to burst your hate-free world bubble but those kind of comments will always be made, this isn't just the net people think those things in real life. the civil rights movement happened in the 1960s and some people still think black folks are all uneducated criminal monkeys. don't hold your breath waiting for those kind comments to go away, no matter how many rights we have. you think that if we elect a black president that anti-black sentiments will end?? do like the rest of us and learn to ignore those anti-gay comments.

Well I'm not naive but I'm quite sure the anonymity of the internet leads a great many people to say things they wouldn't say out loud. It's just interesting for me to hear because there's just a huge disparity in perceptions of sexual activity generationaly.

 

[Spensed]

First, do you know where the "thirty days" came from? Is it a procedural deadline for the Court of Appeals to issue the writ of mandate? The phrase "thirty days" does not occur anywhere in the opinion.

Second, the California legislature cannot overturn this ruling by legislation. The ruling is a construction of the California Constitution. The proposed initiative is a state constitutional amendment. If it passes, it can only be challenged on federal constitutional grounds. I'm not sure whether there is 9th Circuit precedent on gay marriage. (I'm thinking I remember a case from the early 1970s that held a prohibition on gay marriage constitutional under the 14th Amendment. If that is the case, one would have to argue that the foundations of that decision have been undermined and that the holding should be overturned. Then it would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. How do you think Justice Kennedy would rule in light of Lawrence?) In other words, the initiative would be much tougher to invalidate than the statutes in this case, and this case would be pretty much irrelevant in that hypothetical future case.

I'd read the 30 days in one of the first news reports. But it's also mentioned in the news release as the period after which the judgement becomes final.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter/newsreleases/NR26-08.PDF

If it's not mentioned in the judgement, I assume it's a rule that I leave for someone else to confirm. I appreciate that becoming final isn't the same thing as being in effect. But my guess is the news report saw no effective difference and I've not heard of couples lining up to get married tomorrow. But maybe they will.

As for overturning the ruling, you're right technically and the point is moot, given the Democratic majority in the State legislature.

I was talking more loosely in the sense that legislature could theoretically attack such judgements by promoting a change in the state constitution or even by chipping away legislation to the extent it spots loopholes in the judgement.

If I recall correctly, the Federal Supreme Court didn't interfer with the Massachusetts pro-gay marriage decision and my guess it that it would defer to the State Courts, one way or the other, on any anti-gay marriage initiative.

What I was referring to was that, as you know, some of these initiatives aren't worded well enough to withstand constitutional challenge even if they're passed by the voters or there may be other grounds to challenge them.

I haven't looked into this, but I see that the proposed anti-gay initiative claims will not have any fiscal effect and, just off hand, I'm not sure that that's correct. I would have thought that gay marriages might reduce taxes flowing to the State because of joint filings or postponement of death taxes. Or maybe they would increase them. Either way, misrepresentations like this or other theories might leave some wiggle room for pre or post vote challenges.

In this case, IMHO, it helps in the California State Courts that the underlying issue has been adjudicated, in effect, in favor of consitutional protection for gay marriage as opposed to the other way around.

But then I'm just thinking out loud. Obviously, in legal theory there probably should be no difference. But, in reality, I would have thought that the majority who passed today's judgement are going to be predisposed not to see it overturned and, hence, to find fault with any initiative that seeks to do that. We'll see.

 

[construct]

Yes, you're right that the CA Supreme Court has given an indication that they are ill-disposed toward anti-gay bias in marriage law. It's arguable that a federal constitutional challenge would be successful. Still, the only case challenging a state marriage amendment on substantive grounds was the Nebraska case. In that case, the Nebraska District Court held that the Nebraska constitutional amendment violated all kinds of provisions of the U.S. Constitution (due process, equal protection, establishment clause, bill of attainder, and who knows what else). The circuit court reversed and upheld the Nebraska amendment. Granted that's a different circuit and not binding on the 9th Circuit or on the CA Supreme Court, but it is highly persuasive authority.

However, I thought I remembered a case by the name of Singer (or something) from WA back in the 1970s that addressed gay marriage, and that would be stronger precedent than the Nebraska case. It's confusing because there were two gay marriage cases by the same name (both unfavorable), one from WA and one from MN, both in the 1970s. I haven't reviewed them in ages, but it was cited in the more recent gay marriage cases in the WA state courts a few years ago.

I don't think there's any rush on nailing the details down on all this. Nobody will really need it until November at the earliest.

 

[Spensed]

^ Though it is worth watching the anti-gay initiative as it makes its way through the system, challenging any problems with the signatures and signature gathering and framing the possible constitutional challenges in the event it is passed.

There are, obviously, various organizations like Equality California watching the situation:

http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385

Plus, equally obviously, it's important in California to get people to vote against the initiative, if, as seems likely, it does make it to the ballot.

P.S http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002908816_pbarwick04m.html

 

[Spensed]

before anybody starts claiming husbands, i call mario lopez!!!

Unfortunately, it's only the right wing fundamentalists who think that pro-gay marriage judgements, like this one, mean that you can make people marry you whether they want to nor not.

Not that Mario Lopez wouldn't want to marry you, if you asked him nicely. LOL.

 

[construct]

^ Though it is worth watching the anti-gay initiative as it makes its way through the system, challenging any problems with the signatures and signature gathering and framing the possible constitutional challenges in the event it is passed.

There are, obviously, various organizations like Equality California watching the situation:

http://www.eqca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuLRJ9MRKrH&b=4026385

Plus, equally obviously, it's important in California to get people to vote against the initiative, if, as seems likely, it does make it to the ballot.

P.S http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002908816_pbarwick04m.html

If this plays out like it has in other states, we can expect to see signature challenges and squabbling over the wording on the ballot before this gets to the voters.

I hope the presidential candidates don't get involved in this since they all oppose gay marriage, but I'll betcha McCain gets his two cents in on this.

In the meantime, it's important that gay folk in California talk to their friends about the importance of voting "no." Corporate figures urging "no" votes along with the Governor will help as well. They defeated one of these things in Arizona a few years ago, and California put a stop to Anita Bryant's "Save the Children" campaign back in the 1970s. So it can be defeated. I'm pretty hopeful.

And to the naysayers I say that if we wait until it's convenient, we'll never get it done.

Congratulations, California! Hooray for the California Supreme Court! Now, go, go, go!

 

[NickCole]

It's just interesting for me to hear because there's just a huge disparity in perceptions of sexual activity generationaly.

That's interesting.

Can you be specific?

 

[falconfan]

That's interesting.

Can you be specific?

It's just been my experience that generation Xers aren't nearly as anti-gay rights as people from older generations. Even the most Republican people I know, and I know quite a few, don't really care about gay marriage. I personally have long credited it to MTV and the real world specifically but now we're getting off on a tangent.

 

[Zingerific]

I personally have long credited it to MTV and the real world specifically but now we're getting off on a tangent.

Interesting theory... I think there's something to that, especially the first seasons in the early 90s.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that this California Constitutional amendment will pass. I think a lot will depend on Schwarzenegger. He says he will not support it; the question is how vigorously will he campaign against it?

I heard too that the Republican Mayor of San Diego is also against this amendment, but I can't find the link. Has anyone else heard this?

 

[NickCole]

The role Mayor Gavin Newsom played in this has been diminished on this forum --no doubt because it reveals another shameful Obama moment and god forbid that gets exposed-- but the truth is Mayor Newsom's bold and courageous actions in 2004 ignited all this. He's not gay, he has no personal stake in this. Mayor Newsom did this because he's a man of principle and he believed it was the right thing to do. He was on our side not for any personal gain but because principle mattered more than political expediency. Something that's totally at odds with everything Barack Obama is about.

So here's an account from someone who was there.

We're Already Married

By Ruth Rosen - May 16, 2008, 8:35AM
Four years ago, when Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses for same sex marriages, I was still a political columnist at the San Francisco Chronicle. I rushed down to City Hall to bear witness to the historic events of those days. At the time, I thought Gavin Newsom would be remembered for his bold and courageous initiative. Some said to me, "But it's not a good time." I responded, "It's never a good time to deny others the rights you already have."

Already, there are those who are preparing for a referendum for the November ballot that would ban same sex marriages in the California Constitution. But before we lose the joyous celebration of an expanded democracy, I'd like to recall what happened four years ago. Here, from 2004, is what I witnessed--one of the most joyous historic events in my life. ...

[Read the rest:] http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/16/were_already_married/

 

[Glafna]

Governor Arnold(won't even try typing his last name) has overturned the Supreme Courts decision twice(from my information), and they have apparently made it ironclad this time.

Congratulations to Jubbers in California, soon you will be able to cement your love for your partners. To Americans, soon other states will fall, although the "Bible Belt" will stay anti-gay for several years to come, they will stop seeing a black and white book, and start seeing the multicolored flag of human rights.

 

[Glafna]

The role Mayor Gavin Newsom played in this has been diminished on this forum --no doubt because it reveals another shameful Obama moment and god forbid that gets exposed-- but the truth is Mayor Newsom's bold and courageous actions in 2004 ignited all this. He's not gay, he has no personal stake in this. Mayor Newsom did this because he's a man of principle and he believed it was the right thing to do. He was on our side not for any personal gain but because principle mattered more than political expediency. Something that's totally at odds with everything Barack Obama is about.

So here's an account from someone who was there.

EVERYWHERE you pull this shit. Stop blowing smoke out of your ass and stick on topic.

 

[NickCole]

EVERYWHERE you pull this shit. Stop blowing smoke out of your ass and stick on topic.

IMO Obama's turncoat behavior on gay marriage in California is on topic here.

As a gay man who fought for gay rights in the work place and in buying and renting a home, and for a variety of things connected to AIDS, I can testify it's vitally important to have a champion in the White House. The President can create a more hostile or more inviting environment for all kinds of backsliding or advancement. A Senator who refuses to have his picture taken with Mayor Newsom when the Mayor was under fire for championing gay marriage is very similar to Reagan's refusal to speak about AIDS in the 80s.

This behavior reveals a man who is hostile, or at the least totally uncommitted to us and our concerns. We don't matter to him. You don't know what might happen during the next Presidential term, you don't know what we may need someone on our side for. It may be your life or the life of someone you love more than you thought it possible to love someone. If you don't look out for your rights, take care in picking elected officials who may have power to make or break you, who do you expect will?

This refusal to look at the truth of who Obama is is very similar to all the information about Bush being readily available in 2000 and 2004 when a lot of Americans insisted on ignoring it. IMO those people, and the ones who voted for Reagan when it was clear his integrity was more than a little shakey, are responsible for what happened with AIDS unnecessarily getting out of control and all the messes Bush has made. Obama will make similar messes and people who have information like this about him, which reveals the kind of man he is and the kind of President he'll be, will be responsible for them.

 

[Zingerific]

I'm not ready to elevate Gavin Newsom to sainthood just yet. There are a few more things I'd like to know.

He had to know that those marriages would eventually be declared invalid. Was he manipulating the hopes of the gay community? Was his a courageous stand, or was it an exercise in grandstanding, just some showboating
to boost his lefty cred?

Around the same time in 2004, the oh so progressive Multnomah Country board pulled the same stunt. A number of commissioners were under fire from the left, and granting marriage licenses was a cold, calculated, manipulative, political move that ultimately proved counterproductive. Even Rives Kistler, a Justice on the Oregon Supreme Court, who is gay himself, voted to overturn the marriage licenses, so blatantly had Multnomah County overstepped their bounds.

Newsom almost lost to Matt Gonzales earlier. I don't know San Fransisco that well, but I'd like to know whether Newsom's motives were as pure as the wind-driven snow as we've been led to believe.

 

[construct]

IMO Obama's turncoat behavior on gay marriage in California is on topic here.

Sen. Obama's behavior on gay marriage in California is of only tangential relevance to this thread. I remind you that Obama's position is that DOMA should be repealed in its entirety. I believe this is a good position because section 2 purports to allow states to refuse to recognize judicial judgments from other states that are based on marriages from those states. This provision may violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause. (That issue has not to my knowledge been litigated.)

By contrast, Sen. Clinton would retain section 2 of DOMA and repeal only section 3 which defines marriage for purposes of federal law. Obama's position on gay marriage is better than Clinton's.

Furthermore, Obama issued a statement mildly supportive of the California Supreme Court's decision. To my knowledge, Clinton has made no statement about it at all. Thus Clinton's silence is more akin to Reagan's silence in the face of the AIDS epidemic.

On the issue of gay marriage, Obama is better than anyone still in the race in either major party.

Now let's return to our regularly scheduled thread and see if we can get a San Franciscan or at least a Californian to answer Zingerific's interesting question about whether there were personal political reasons for Newsom's marriage order. This is the first time I've heard of this possibility being raised.

 

[falconfan]

Sen. Obama's behavior on gay marriage in California is of only tangential relevance to this thread. I remind you that Obama's position is that DOMA should be repealed in its entirety. I believe this is a good position because section 2 purports to allow states to refuse to recognize judicial judgments from other states that are based on marriages from those states. This provision may violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause. (That issue has not to my knowledge been litigated.)

By contrast, Sen. Clinton would retain section 2 of DOMA and repeal only section 3 which defines marriage for purposes of federal law. Obama's position on gay marriage is better than Clinton's.

Furthermore, Obama issued a statement mildly supportive of the California Supreme Court's decision. To my knowledge, Clinton has made no statement about it at all. Thus Clinton's silence is more akin to Reagan's silence in the face of the AIDS epidemic.

On the issue of gay marriage, Obama is better than anyone still in the race in either major party.

Now let's return to our regularly scheduled thread and see if we can get a San Franciscan or at least a Californian to answer Zingerific's interesting question about whether there were personal political reasons for Newsom's marriage order. This is the first time I've heard of this possibility being raised.

I really don't think you can equate a presidential nominees lack of acknowledgement of one court decision t to a president completely ignoring the mass deaths of a huge cross section of the American population. Your comparison is not valid and meant to be just as inflamatory as Nick's unnecessary Obama bashing.

 

[construct]

I really don't think you can equate a presidential nominees lack of acknowledgement of one court decision t to a president completely ignoring the mass deaths of a huge cross section of the American population. Your comparison is not valid and meant to be just as inflamatory as Nick's unnecessary Obama bashing.

Then you understood the point I was making.

 

[construct]

Okay, I was wrong. Sen. Clinton was not silent. Here's what she said.

Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=blog&sc2=news&sc3=&id=74553

It is almost identical to Sen. Obama's statement which I reprint here.

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

These statements are somewhat different from Sen. McCain's statement.

John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonat...Obama_weigh_in_on_Cali_marriage_decision.html

 

[JayHawk]

So what happens when the good citizens of California go to the polls and make it a Constitutional amendment. They already voted it down once. Either they will feel corrected by the judges or pissed at being told they dont matter.

Will the Governator veto it again?
Will it pass or fail with more or less of a majority?

As was pointed out earlier, as Cali goes so goes the US legally.......What if it ends badly? Helluva setback at that point...

Of course since the North East already embraces the rights to marry in Mass and the right of civil unions already exist in Vermont, Connecticut and New Joisee. So I guess the Cali saying doesnt hold true.

Then again the bans are far more encompassing so maybe the saying is true:

Thirty-nine states already prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed by Congress in 1996, the federal DOMA bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere. Four states (Maryland, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming) have laws or court rulings prohibiting same-sex marriage that predate the federal DOMA.

^^ just to start some heated brain fires out there I will throw out a THANKS BILL.....I guess these are the great policies the gay folks for Clinton are working towards

 

[Backlum-Chaam]

So what happens when the good citizens of California go to the polls and make it a Constitutional amendment. They already voted it down once. Either they will feel corrected by the judges or pissed at being told they dont matter.

Civil rights trump tyranny of the majority.

What if the good citizens of West Virginia went to the polls to vote down anti-segregation laws?