California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4. You can read briefs and see video of the case here: http://www.freedomtomarry.org
I Predict a Victory for Marriage Equality in CA later this year. :thumb:
Printable View
California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on March 4. You can read briefs and see video of the case here: http://www.freedomtomarry.org
I Predict a Victory for Marriage Equality in CA later this year. :thumb:
does marriage really mean anything anymore?
I don't really care to get married, as much as I care for being allowed to visit my boyfriend in the hospital if such tragedy ever happens. We're recognized as domestic partners by his work, but never filed with the state. We're going to file the paperwork sometime this month, even though I already get insurance from him, but for the other rights married people have.... Besides that, we don't care to have the "married" title. We're just two guys, we're both keeping our own names, though I'm adding a middle name to my name (since it's cheaper this way, and I've always wanted one...a middle name is like an extra accesory to a gay man) Anyways...so yeahQuote:
Originally Posted by Mr Karl
I just see it as a civil agreement that should be available to all. A lot of people who want to make this commitment are not allowed to. I see this as wrong in principle and practice. What does it mean? I don't know. I've met a lot of couples who articulated what it would mean to them. The reasons vary from pragmatic legal considerations to basic equality. I see no reason why they should be denied the opportunity to pursue their happiness in the ways they fit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Karl
I recognize the marriage of many partners in my community. I would like my government to stop making distinctions based on sexuality.
I don't usually post anymore...I just generally lurk...
But I don't think that it'd be a good time for any kind of case like this to come up since it might give opponents of gay marriage a case to take to the Supreme Court. Based on the leanings of the current court it seems less than ideal time for a case to reach the Supreme Court. Strategically it seems like a bad idea because if it did reach the Supreme Court there would be precedent. The only recourse then would be amending the constitution which seems like a much more difficult task than waiting for a court willing to make a "controversial" ruling.
That would be true had the case arose in federal court. This is a case pertaining only to California marriage law. It will be decided by the California Supreme Court as previous cases were in NJ and Massachusetts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Vicious Vivaldi
It would definitely be a bad time to make a federal case of it now. You never want a losing precedent.
This has been timed to give McCain the white house.
Most Americans don't want gay marriage. McCain will be NOT in favour, Hillary will, and next thing you know, she's been John Kerry'd up the ass and we're stuck with bom bom bom, bom bom Iran.
I realize that the case only has bearing in CA but if a federal issue does arise, even if only tenuously, it could removed to federal jurisdiction and heard by the Supreme Court. It wouldn't be the first time the Supreme Court removed a case from what would seem to be state jurisdiction (ex. Bush v. Gore - as I recall some of the more liberal justices questioned jurisdiction in their dissents).Quote:
Originally Posted by One Eyed Cat
It would seem like the full-faith clause in Article IV would create at least some sort of federal issue. Since if CA courts make a worthwhile holding there'd have to be at least some sort of marriage contract giving same-sex couples comparable rights to heterosexual couples. If there wasn't the full-faith clause I would guess that people would be much more indifferent to state same-sex marriage cases.
It wouldn't be hard to envision a case arising where a state refuses to recognize same sex marriage from CA. Even though petitioner would probably be the couple and not the state of CA, I'm pretty sure it'd be a federal issue and not a state issue. It would also give the court an opportunity to invalidate the CA ruling if they found the marriage unconstitutional since the federal constitution is supreme over state ones. (article IV clause 2)
Having a positive holding in favor of non-discriminatory marriage law in CA would seem like a greater victory symbolic than in NJ and MA. Not that they're less important states but CA has a greater degree of notoriety making it easier to rally against a CA decision than a NJ or MA decision. (maybe I'm biased as a CA citizen) Having CA as a specific rallying point could possibly act as a greater impetus for anti-gay marriage lobbyists to try to take it to the Supreme Court.
I do support equal marriage rights for couples regardless of the gender. It just seems like a poor time for a case to come up. Especially with a presidential election and all of that contention. With the way our system of justice works and how long it takes a case to be heard it seems like it's just bad luck and bad timing. (or maybe a clerk has some sort of insidious agenda...)
DOMA prevents the full-faith clause from taking effect. This case has absolutely no bearing on other states as the law stands. The Supreme Court will have no say in this. I would agree the timing is unfortunate, but I see no conspiracy. This arose from the SF cases folks may recall from several years ago and followed the normal appeal process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Vicious Vivaldi
OEC
I don't buy into a conspiracy theory being present here. The Democrats are doing a sufficient job of self-immolating anyways. McCain could use Clinton's ads against Obama and probably win on that basis alone. I don't see Clinton as electable to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikerpunk
OEC