http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1 SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California counties can issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning June 17, the state said in a directive issued Wednesday. The state Office of Vital Records said it chose June 17 because the state Supreme Court has until the close of business on June 16 to decide whether to grant a stay of its May 15 ruling legalizing gay marriage. Gay rights advocates and some clerks initially thought couples would be able to wed as early as Saturday, June 14—exactly 30 days after the court's ruling, when its decisions typically take effect. But a group opposed to gay marriage has asked the court to stay its decision until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Passage of the initiative would overrule the Supreme Court. Under the Supreme Court's regular rules of procedure, justices have until the end of the day on June 16 to rule on the stay request, according to the memo sent by e-mail to the state's 58 county clerks. Lawyers involved in the marriage case have said previously the court could grant itself an extra 60 days to consider the stay. The guidelines from Mark Horton, director of the California Department of Public Health, also contained copies of new marriage forms that include lines for "Party A" and "Party B" instead of bridge and groom. The gender-neutral nomenclature was developed in consultation with county clerks, according to the letter. "Effective June 17, 2008, only the enclosed new forms may be issued for the issuance of marriage licenses in California," the directive reads.
Yeah, they did. "But a group opposed to gay marriage has asked the court to stay its decision until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Passage of the initiative would overrule the Supreme Court."
I'm all for the seperate states to decide about Gay marriage, because what California wants may not be what Nebraska wants and what Massachusetts wants may not be what Pennsylvania wants, etc. I would have preferred to have it decided in the legislature or by the people instead of the courts, but that's a different story.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 28 2008, 09:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, they did. "But a group opposed to gay marriage has asked the court to stay its decision until after the November election, when voters are likely to face a ballot initiative that would once again define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Passage of the initiative would overrule the Supreme Court."</div> As in, the Supreme Court has already overruled the voters... That =/= the structure of American government...
Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. At least two of the three are satisfied by legalized gay marriage. It has to be resolved, one way or the other (preferably legalize it). Now you have people get married in California and move to Nebraska. I think Nebraska is obligated to recognized the marriage.
Yep, full faith and credit comes into play. But for it to come from a court after the people voted against it goes against much.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 28 2008, 06:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yep, full faith and credit comes into play. But for it to come from a court after the people voted against it goes against much.</div> The rules probably permit people to get a ballot initiative going to reinstitute slavery. Should the court overrule that if it passes? (I think so)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 28 2008, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 28 2008, 06:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yep, full faith and credit comes into play. But for it to come from a court after the people voted against it goes against much.</div> The rules probably permit people to get a ballot initiative going to reinstitute slavery. Should the court overrule that if it passes? (I think so) </div> Slavery is forbidden by the US Constitution, which trumps everything else. Not nearly the same.
The state constitution trumps the ballot initiative. Unless the initiative changes the constitution, that is.
^^^ As does the 14th amendment, and Brown v. Board of Education (separate but equal, e.g. civil unions, is unacceptable).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 28 2008, 08:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. At least two of the three are satisfied by legalized gay marriage. It has to be resolved, one way or the other (preferably legalize it). Now you have people get married in California and move to Nebraska. I think Nebraska is obligated to recognized the marriage.</div> I don't think so, because neither the people, the legislators, or the courts have recognized gay marriage as legal. If I lived in Florida with no income tax for 20 years and I move to another state with an income tax, do I have the right not to pay income taxes because I'm from Florida?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 28 2008, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^ As does the 14th amendment, and Brown v. Board of Education (separate but equal, e.g. civil unions, is unacceptable).</div> Except there again, it was a federal court deciding a federal issue. As well, the 'evidence' provided to demonstrate how deliberately changing the definition of marriage will somehow equalize all manner of inequities - real and perceived - is seriously scanty.
Here's my thought on the matter. If states want to redefine marriage from its traditional meaning, they, through their voters (either via elected legislatures, referenda etc.) are free to do so. But a court can't come in and play politics - not even a California court.
The Opinion may be found here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF I find Judge Baxter's Opinion most persuasive and well-reasoned, though Judge Corrigan's is also interesting.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ May 28 2008, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 28 2008, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>^^^ As does the 14th amendment, and Brown v. Board of Education (separate but equal, e.g. civil unions, is unacceptable).</div> Except there again, it was a federal court deciding a federal issue. As well, the 'evidence' provided to demonstrate how deliberately changing the definition of marriage will somehow equalize all manner of inequities - real and perceived - is seriously scanty. </div> The state courts still rule on the constitutionality of the state laws. The issue isn't just "changing the definition of marriage," it's the rights and benefits that go along with it. Like being able to file taxes as a married couple, probate law regarding spousal rights, insurance law, rights of a spouse to direct medical care, adoption rights, and more. In these things, the states do not provide equal protection under the law. I realize the 14th is interpreted to include "special groups" and that gays are not among those special groups, but that wouldn't apply here as it is not providing some additional or special protection for one group over others.
^ Except that the point made in the dissents relating to California's Domestic Partnership Act still remains a significant guaranteur of rights for homosexual couples. On the subject of special groups, the level of scrutiny that is applied was questionable for that very reason - though again, that point was raised on dissent. I really was not persuaded by the majority, or the concurrence. Wrong case, wrong time.
