California Supreme Court to decide same-sex marriage issue
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
More than two years after it nullified nearly 4,000 weddings of gay and lesbian couples performed at San Francisco City Hall, the court voted unanimously Wednesday to decide whether state law, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, violates a constitutional right to marry the partner of one’s choice.
The justices granted a hearing on appeals by same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco after a state appellate court voted 2-1 on Oct. 5 to uphold the state law, which the Legislature passed in 1977 and voters reaffirmed in 2000.
December 21st, 2006 at 11:30 am
Another one of those times that I wish Janice Rogers Brown was still on the court. I have little confidence in her replacement, Carol Corrigan.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Are they looking at it from a state or federal constitutional perpsective? It said a “state law” but that is not clear whehter the law is a statute or a state constitutional provision. It seems most states (as Texas) are making it a state constitutional amendment.
December 21st, 2006 at 6:37 pm
I’m pretty sure it’s a state statute. So they’re deciding whether it violates the CA constitution. If California had amended its constitution to ban gay marriage I think it would’ve been pretty big news.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:06 pm
It is a state statute that was enacted by voter initiative (Proposition 22). This, and the fact that Prop. 22 was approved by over 60% of the electorate, bodes well for it surviving a state constitutional challenge.
Again, though, I’d feel a whole lot better if Janice Rogers Brown was still on the court.
December 21st, 2006 at 10:09 pm
FYI: Prop. 22 became codified as Family Code Section 308.5, which states “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:49 am
Are Cal Supreme Court justices elected? If so, that would also give a boost to the statute being upheld.
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:40 pm
I for one welcome our judicial overlords.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
“Are Cal Supreme Court justices elected? If so, that would also give a boost to the statute being upheld.”
which is exactly why judges and justices should not be elected. a court’s determination of the constitutionality of a law should not depend on whether the judges are elected.
December 22nd, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Are Cal Supreme Court justices elected?
Not exactly. They are initially appointed by the sitting governor and must later be retained at the next general election by a majority of the voting public. Once retained, they won’t have to face another election for 12 years (I think).
December 27th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Americans finally realize the try-before-you-buy works just as well with sex as it does with commodities. Rather than marrying and then shacking up with hot sex coming after the nuptuals, Americans are increasingly putting out before putting on the wedding rings.Women are just as likely as men to get it on before matrimony.
I think this is just the sign of the times. I mean, we like to test things, try them out, before making a purchase. Why should sex and marriage be any different? The stigma associated with pre-marital sex is dead. Long live free love!