Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[GeneralHankerchief]

This issue is not going to go away, one way or another.

Early reports show that Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative designed to reverse the recent state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage is probably going to be passed. Now, this most likely isn't going to happen in Connecticut, but assuming that gay marriage is banned in California then it will galvanize the bases of both sides - culture war reinvigorated.

Personally, I think if we see a cascade of courts doing what those in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have done, the conservative outcry (against judicial activism, NOT gay marriage) will be so great that there will be ramifications.

[Koga No Goshi]

This issue is not going to go away, one way or another.

Early reports show that Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative designed to reverse the recent state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage is probably going to be passed. Now, this most likely isn't going to happen in Connecticut, but assuming that gay marriage is banned in California then it will galvanize the bases of both sides - culture war reinvigorated.

Personally, I think if we see a cascade of courts doing what those in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have done, the conservative outcry (against judicial activism, NOT gay marriage) will be so great that there will be ramifications.

This is not the first time the issue has been overturned in CA, btw. A lot of fear tactic radio ad spots have been flooding the voters, too, just in the last week or so. They make this really grandiose, cue theatrical stinger music claims about how the sanctity of marriage won't be protected... but they never say how. And "we don't have to accept this." Accept what? The icky gay people? *Shrug*

[GeneralHankerchief]

This is not the first time the issue has been overturned in CA, btw.

In what way has it been overturned? Court ruling? Law passed? Other ballot initiatives?

And for the record, there are two arguments against gay marriage: "sanctity of marriage" and "judicial activism". Judicial activism holds more water IMHO but it's not as effective a message to the masses (and the religious right) as Sanctity of Marriage.

[Koga No Goshi]

In what way has it been overturned? Court ruling? Law passed? Other ballot initiatives?

And for the record, there are two arguments against gay marriage: "sanctity of marriage" and "judicial activism". Judicial activism holds more water IMHO but it's not as effective a message to the masses (and the religious right) as Sanctity of Marriage.

If memory serves, in 2004 we had the same damn ballot over the same damn issue. Overturning it. And it will probably happen again this year. Hooray, the state is safe from gay people wrecking marriage for four more years. Now, let's get back to the latest Paris Hilton sex tape and the documentary on Britney and K-Fed.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Wait... which party just had two turns to stuff the court and the justice department with hardliner ideological cronies?

Please don't use this argument. Every President has been doing this since FDR tried to pack the Court in the 1930s when it was overturning his New Deal legislation left and right. Do you honestly think that Obama and a heavily Democratic Senate will show the Right any mercy when it comes time to nominate appellate and Supreme Court justices? Shaping the courts is one of the president's most underrated powers.

If memory serves, in 2004 we had the same damn ballot over the same damn issue. Overturning it. And it will probably happen again this year.

So, in this case, the Court overturned a direct popular vote? Well, I can see why it's so unpopular among the Right now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I suspect that we will have civil unions -- termed marriages -- between same sex couples in many states in the not-to-distant future. In practice, this will spread to all states.

The issue is emphatically NOT addressed in the U.S. Constitution, therefore the 10th ammendment notes that it is up to each state to decide such things for itself in accordance with its laws, so long as those laws/decisions do not contravene the rights of another U.S. citizen. Since extending "marriage" to include your same-sex couple does not impinge on my rights directly (doesn't make my marriage any less meaningful/beneficial), states may decide to make such unions legal.

Where it will get interesting is the "full faith and credence" clause to the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that -- absent some compelling data that same-sex marriage somehow debases and harms traditional marrriage (thus constituing a impingement of another's rights) -- ALL states will be required to treat such marriages as legal unions with all rights, duties, and privileges thereunto apertaining EVEN if the state in question opposes such unions and does not allow them to be performed in that state.

I suspect that the court would have to rule thus even now based upon Massachusett's decision alone.

[Xiahou]

I suspect that the court would have to rule thus even now based upon Massachusett's decision alone.

Don't you think that the DOMA should provide cover given the "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." part of the full faith and credit clause?

[drone]

The issue is emphatically NOT addressed in the U.S. Constitution, therefore the 10th ammendment notes that it is up to each state to decide such things for itself in accordance with its laws, so long as those laws/decisions do not contravene the rights of another U.S. citizen. Since extending "marriage" to include your same-sex couple does not impinge on my rights directly (doesn't make my marriage any less meaningful/beneficial), states may decide to make such unions legal.

Where it will get interesting is the "full faith and credence" clause to the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that -- absent some compelling data that same-sex marriage somehow debases and harms traditional marrriage (thus constituing a impingement of another's rights) -- ALL states will be required to treat such marriages as legal unions with all rights, duties, and privileges thereunto apertaining EVEN if the state in question opposes such unions and does not allow them to be performed in that state.

In this case, the interstate commerce clause actually has some teeth though. There are too many legal/monetary benefits and implications with "marriage" to deal with these unions state by state. A generic "civil union" compliance law at the federal level might cover it, each state can comply with it's rules and has flexibility, but must accept other states' contracts regardless of the type of union.