Capitol Hill Blue Forums We shall overcome

The length of this thread is, I think, a testament to the significance of the issue - not just in California - but throughout the United States. I think there are many of us that do see this as a seminal moment in the development of our nation. We are facing some of the most fundamental issues of our history, and this is the backdrop against which the consideration of our founding principles are being examined. That is the reason that I am so focused on it.

What are our foundational principles? Do we protect the interests of our minorities against the "tyranny of the majority"? The California Supreme Court, like many courts before it and since, including the United States Supreme Court, has identified marriage as a fundamental constitutional right, indeed an unalienable civil right, in the words of the California Supreme Court. Once it determined that this was so, can a bare majority of the population of California take that right away from a significant minority population? Is it thus no longer an unalienable right? And if this is true for this minority, isn't it true for any minority, and any right, unalienable or not?

For the immediate purpose of the current Prop 8 debate, though, the question is whether that majority's effort represents an Amendment or a Revision. If this is not a revision, and thus, a failed attempt, I am not sure that anything can be a revision. As a practical matter, the California Supreme Court should invalidate the effort (Prop 8). It cannot be overturned by a federal court, it is expressly within its authority under the California Constitution to determine what is a Revision, and it will bring the silliness of willy-nilly constitutional initiatives under some control. Whether it will do so will (or technically, has done so), will be revealed in just over an hour.

Media here in the Bay Area is expecting the Prop 8 decision at 10 a.m. today.

6 to 1 The Supreme Court of California rejected the challenge to Prop 8 which means the gay marriage in California is illegal.

The 18,000 gay marriages that were performed between June 2008 and November 2008 are valid.

The struggle in California for equality continues...

My disappointment is significant. Looking for the decision, now. Cowards!

Hey! ...at least when I do find a boyfriend, I can marry in Massachusetts, or Iowa, or...

The next step is a voter-approved constitutional amendment on marriage equality.

Although I was politely asked to leave this discussion a couple of months ago, you may find the following interesting. Also unsettling for anyone advocating that government be in the marriage business.

“Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage, the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves”

There is a common misconception that a government marriage is a contract between the husband and wife. That assumption is not quite true. There are three parties: The bride, the groom and the government. The bride and groom merely agree (assent) to be governed by the government’s rules. The government reserves the exclusive right to itself to change the rules at anytime.

It is the price the couple pays in exchange for a bundle of exclusive subsidies and privileges.

The decision can be found at Court decision The dissent by justice Moreno makes better sense than the majority opinion:

Well, my Californian friends - I think all I can say is I'm sorry it turned out this way...and never give up.

After thinking about this decision for the past couple of hours, I've come to the conclusion that the Court voted the right way and here's why:

1. When Prop 22 was passed, it made a legislative law stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The California Supreme Court stated in May 2008, that based on California's Constitution, Prop 22 was invalid and gays could marry because there was no language in the Constitution restricting what marriage is.

2. The CA Supreme stated that Prop 8 is a Constitutional admendment and therefore, marriage is between a man and a woman because that's what the People of California want; although the Court could have also labeled Prop 8 a revision to the Constitution, which, I think, is the true way Prop 8 should have been legally held as it took rights away.

- and -

The CA Supreme court correctly stated that the gay marriages between June 2008 and November 2008 are valid because at the time of those marriages, there was no Constitutional language in California barring such marriages.


Now. How does the California Franchise Tax Board reconcile their records allowing 18,000 gay couples married status on their tax return?

IF those 18,000 can file married, why can't another California couple marry in Iowa and file married status on their California Tax Return?

At any rate, this day is not over. Unfortunately, there are going to be legal challenges after legal challenges costing our State even more money that it does not have.