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.
