CA Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban ...

[_Sethbag]

It seems that the CA court is in violation of Baker v. Nelson

Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.

This case should go all the way.

I haven't read the CA decision yet, but were they really arguing that the ban offended the US Constitution? I would have assumed that they ruled that it offended the California Constitution.

[_guy sajer]

It seems that the CA court is in violation of Baker v. Nelson

Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.

This case should go all the way.

I haven't read the CA decision yet, but were they really arguing that the ban offended the US Constitution? I would have assumed that they ruled that it offended the California Constitution.

I hope it does go all the way, and I hope it wins. 20-30 years from now gay rights will be seen in much the same light as civil rights is today, as a no-brainer by everyone except a relatively small collection of bigot recidivists and conservative religions. The Mormon Church will remain decades behind the curve, perhaps never catching up, yet one more piece of evidence that it is run by men with limited vision than an all-wise and all-loving deity.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I haven't read the CA decision yet, but were they really arguing that the ban offended the US Constitution? I would have assumed that they ruled that it offended the California Constitution.

I have read the opinion and there's nary a mention of the U.S. Constitution -- it seems the court was very careful to limit its analysis to the CA state constitution. I'm no legal eagle, but it seems the U.S. Supreme Court would have no interest in this case with the way it was decided strictly under state law, unless the decision is viewed as violative of the U.S. Constitution, but I don't see how it could be. My money is on the Supremes deciding not to hear this case and denying the writ of certoriari.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

My reading of the opinion revealed the following irony and trivia:

1. No surpise here -- both the LDS Church and Evergreen filed 'friend of the court' briefs, among a gazillion others. Lynn D. Wardle (BYU law professor who is an outspoken critic of legalized gay marriage) also filed a 'friend of the court' brief. I'm sure there are many other TBM's and LDS-affiliated groups among the very long list of amici curiae, but those were the only ones I noticed in a quick review.

2. Some great irony -- the court several times quotes or cites (in footnotes 36, 38 and 40) to a 1983 article published in the Michigan Law Review authored by none other than Bruce Hafen, currently a GA (member of the Seventy), for the proposition of the importance of "family" to society. Of course, Hafen never intended this to extend to a family of a gay married couple, but the court (correctly, I think) has no problem using this to say that gay marriage, like heterosexual marriage, promotes "family" as the basic unit of society. I bet Hafen is ticked the court used his writing this way. Also, in footnote 41, the court does a similar thing in citing to an article published in the BYU Journal of Public Law authored by none other than BYU law professor Lynn Wardle, an outspoken gay marriage critic and an amici curiae appellant on the losing side of this case. I have to admit that I took great pleasure in seeing the court use the whole "family" argument traditionally espoused by TBM's, as support for its ruling that a gay couple can also form a "family" which is the basic building block of society. Let's face it, heterosexuals do not have a monopoly when it comes to forming and nurturing a "family," and this decision confirms it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Below is from an article in today's Deseret News:

The LDS Church released the following statement:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes that same sex marriage can be an emotional and divisive issue. However, the church teaches that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is the basic unit of society. Today's California Supreme Court decision is unfortunate."

The church declined comment on what future action it may take to help challenge the court's decision. Opponents of the ruling are hoping a planned November ballot measure seeking to amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage will succeed.

[_harmony]

" the family is the basic unit of society. "

But only the church's definition of "family" is acceptable.

Good grief.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

" the family is the basic unit of society. "

But only the church's definition of "family" is acceptable.

Good grief.

Exactly. But the CA Supreme Court disagrees .... ;)

[_skippy the dead]

It seems that the CA court is in violation of Baker v. Nelson

Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.

This case should go all the way.

I haven't read the CA decision yet, but were they really arguing that the ban offended the US Constitution? I would have assumed that they ruled that it offended the California Constitution.

Yeah, bcspace should really learn to read things before he makes sweeping pronouncements. In the very beginning of the decision, the court writes:

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is
not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California
Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while
denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship
with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our
state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which
both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an
officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal
rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution
of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially
designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially
designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether,
under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of
same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

(bold mine)

As noted by bcspace, Baker v. Nelson asks only whether a prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the 1st, 8th, 9th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

Different animals altogether - there is no federal question here.

[_skippy the dead]

My reading of the opinion revealed the following irony and trivia:

1. No surpise here -- both the LDS Church and Evergreen filed 'friend of the court' briefs, among a gazillion others. Lynn D. Wardle (BYU law professor who is an outspoken critic of legalized gay marriage) also filed a 'friend of the court' brief. I'm sure there are many other TBM's and LDS-affiliated groups among the very long list of amici curiae, but those were the only ones I noticed in a quick review.

2. Some great irony -- the court several times quotes or cites (in footnotes 36, 38 and 40) to a 1983 article published in the Michigan Law Review authored by none other than Bruce Hafen, currently a GA (member of the Seventy), for the proposition of the importance of "family" to society. Of course, Hafen never intended this to extend to a family of a gay married couple, but the court (correctly, I think) has no problem using this to say that gay marriage, like heterosexual marriage, promotes "family" as the basic unit of society. I bet Hafen is ticked the court used his writing this way. Also, in footnote 41, the court does a similar thing in citing to an article published in the BYU Journal of Public Law authored by none other than BYU law professor Lynn Wardle, an outspoken gay marriage critic and an amici curiae appellant on the losing side of this case. I have to admit that I took great pleasure in seeing the court use the whole "family" argument traditionally espoused by TBM's, as support for its ruling that a gay couple can also form a "family" which is the basic building block of society. Let's face it, heterosexuals do not have a monopoly when it comes to forming and nurturing a "family," and this decision confirms it.

Side note: I had a class from Wardle and I had the misfortune of working as an assistant for him. Needless to say, we did not get along.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Now I have something to pray about on fast sunday...

Why are you sparing parts of California, and smiting parts of Mexico?