10 States Ask Calif. to Delay Gay Marriage

[E.J.]

10 States Ask Calif. to Delay Gay Marriage

by the Associated Press

The attorneys general of 10 states are urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.

The attorneys general say in court documents filed Thursday that they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriage of gay residents who wed in California.

They want the court to stay its ruling until after the November election, when voters likely will decide whether to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown is urging the court not to grant the stay.

The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.

?365Gay.com 2008

[Tanuki Racoon]

Piss on 'em. Do not delay. It'll just make it easier for someone to stop it.

[Fun Tails]

Like I said in the California thread, the impact of the California ruling will be immense. Even though Mass. has had gay marriage for a while now, they are a small state. California is 1/8 the US population. If gays start getting married there, married gay couples are gonna be showing up all over the country really fast demanding recognition.

I'm not surprised these states are panicking.

I'm with WBM: piss on em. (fart in the general direction too)

[JamesSavik]

One step forward, 10 states that want to push us two steps back.

Who will rid me of these troublesome priests?

[Graeme]

Given that this is the Supreme Court of California, do the other states even have the right to request this? If it is inconvenient for the other states, does that really matter to California? After all, what those states do is their own business. I would have thought that it is only federal courts or the Supreme Court of the United States that they would have to defer to.

Especially as I believe many of these states have laws or constitutional amendments that ban the recognition of same-sex marriages, even if they occur in another state.

[Cole Parker]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I thought the California Supreme Court made a legal ruling, not a popular judgment. They ruled that their interprataton of the state's constitution was the equal protection clause would be violated by not allowing gays to marry. This seems to be something that other states cannot effect. It has nothing to do with them, from the standpoint of what is legal in California. So staying this decision makes no sense in that context.

C

[colinian]

Given that this is the Supreme Court of California, do the other states even have the right to request this? If it is inconvenient for the other states, does that really matter to California? After all, what those states do is their own business. I would have thought that it is only federal courts or the Supreme Court of the United States that they would have to defer to.

Especially as I believe many of these states have laws or constitutional amendments that ban the recognition of same-sex marriages, even if they occur in another state.

The representatives from these other states have no standing in front of the California Supreme Court; they are making their request as a "friend of the court". As Cole says, the California ruling has nothing to do with other states, and the Court will most likely ignore the briefs that were filed.

Colin

[DesDownunder]

The representatives from these other states have no standing in front of the California Supreme Court; they are making their request as a "friend of the court". As Cole says, the California ruling has nothing to do with other states, and the Court will most likely ignore the briefs that were filed.

Colin

As well the court should.

Jamessavik: King Henry II salutes you.

[Cole Parker]

The LA Times this morning reported that enough petition signatures have been collected to allow the measure of gay marriages to go on the upcoming ballot. It will be an issue to amend the California Constitution to ban marriage between two same-sex people.

They also stated that the mood of the electorate has changed since this issue was voted on in Proposition 22 amost a decade ago. Then, the measure banning gay marriage collected 60% of the vote. Polls taken recently have revealed that that measure only carries about 54% favorability now. However, the other side doesn't get 46% of the vote. Support for gay marriage only has 40% of the vote, leaving 6% either undecided or unwilling to answer the poll question.

This is very sad news. It took long struggles for women and blacks to become full citizens in this country in the early and middle parts of last century. Is anyone surprised that it appears it will be the same for gays?

C

[Trab]

When I hear about things like that, I can't help but think that these types of votes (I think you call them 'initiatives'?) are not always a good thing. Just because something is popular doesn't make it 'right'. There was a time when Hitler enjoyed popularity too. One can only wonder what would happen if a large state with mostly whites started this type of drive to ban marriages by blacks. The majority is NOT always right. Somewhere along the way, something seems to have become lost. When I was in school, we were taught that democracy is rule by the majority, but with care to consider the rights of the minorities. That last part seems to have gone missing.

[Trab]

A thought: are these proposed bans against marriage, or against the condition of being married? There is a significant difference.

[Steven Keiths]

I believe Initiatives can be voided by the California Supreme Court if they find them unconstitutional. And if it is decided it is an Equal Protection right that is being violated the Initiative can be nullified. It would be akin to 90% of the people saying it is okay to steal red cars on Wednesday. Doesn't matter if everyone votes for that. The courts would never allow it to become law. (I realize that is an absurd example, but...)

I'm not sure, but I think it takes more than a popular vote to amend the Constitution. I'll have to look into that.

I believe the Amicus Briefs filed by other states are a delaying tactic, which indicates to me that there is a tad of fear out there.

[Cole Parker]

Steven, I hope you're right!

And I thought the same thing, that the Court could void the voters will if it violated the constitution. Of course, this is a vote to change the constitution, and so is a little different.

But it still seems to me that your point is valid, and I can remember not too long ago an inititiative that was approved by the voters being thrown out by the Court for the reason you gave.

We'll have to see. I don't know enough.

A frequent failing of mine.

C

[E.J.]

What is going on the ballot is a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the constitution cannot be unconstitutional.

[Trab]

"An amendment to the constitution cannot be unconstitutional."

I won't presume to say that I know about this, but I hope and indeed, doubt, that you are right. Surely a state constitution would be limited by the national constitution. There are probably also articles within the constitution itself that limits changes to the constitution. Those articles, which I assume they were smart enough to include, would be inviolate. Again, I don't really know, but logic would indicate that protections are probably built in.

[Cole Parker]

Where's a good constitutional lawyer when you need one?

C

[The Pecman]

Surely a state constitution would be limited by the national constitution.

I'm not a lawyer, but my partner has a law degree, and I know enough about the law to be very dangerous.

There are certain matters on which the Supreme Court has refused to rule, and those sometimes pertain to state laws. This is the reason there are thousands of different laws and rules that are only on the books in one state, but not another. "Age of consent" is a good example. So are speed limits.

Because many politicians believe marriage involves religion and morality, I think the Supreme Court is reluctant to make a ruling on it.

On the other hand, some states have tried to pass laws legalizing marijuana, and the Supreme Court has overriden that -- except in medical cases (and even then, it's sketchy).