Supreme Court(CA) overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[apocolypse]

I wonder if the Republicans will try to use it as a "wedge issue" again. They did that with the 2004 Massachusetts decision . . . but twice in a row?

Some social conservatives may try, but I doubt it will have the same impact if so. Back in '04 people weren't nearly as worried about the economy and gas prices as they are now. I think the fear of recession among other fiscal concerns will definitely drop down the "OMGWTF BUTTSECKS!!11" factor quite a bit.

[Justforfun000]

Congratulations my fellow Americans. I'm so glad to see progress still coming up despite all the adversity you face. While you'll never have as fast (or as vast) a capitulation as Canada did, every little step helps.

[Invictus ChiKen]

It is wonderful to hear some good news for a change

[Superman]

Woot! Once again I'm proud to be a Californian.

[Metatwaddle]

So it isn't going to the Supreme Court.

Unless someone can find, or invent an argument as to why SCOTUS gets to review it.

Given the current makeup of that court, I expect they'd seize upon any excuse to interfere, that they possibly could.

I actually highly doubt they would. They would duck the issue or claim no jurisdiction, of which they have none.

I do too. Some of the staunchest social conservatives on the court are also fans of small federal government. I don't know much about all the justices, but I think that Justice Scalia, for example, is honest enough to say that SCOTUS can't rule on this interpretation of a state constitution.

[Duckie]

Massachusetts contains 2% of the US population. California about 12%. Together, this means that 1 out of every 7 gays or lesbians, up from 1 out of every [ b]50[/b], can get married.

That math shows how it's even more of a victory than you'd figure, just getting 1 new state- it's certainly not the tiny population added if Wyoming did so, for instance.

This also means that there are about 6 new people willing to make Full Faith and Credit lawsuits on honouring gay marriages in banned states (a first step to circumventing and thus destroying the bans), just figuring probabilistically.

[Duckie]

Ghetto Edit- I suck at proofreading:

6 new people willing to make Full Faith and Credit lawsuits for every 1 who has tried it in Massachusetts

[Tsyroc]

So is this most likely to go to the US Supreme Court when some other state won't recognize a mariage that is legal in California?

[Davis 51]

So is this most likely to go to the US Supreme Court when some other state won't recognize a mariage that is legal in California?

Pretty much. I saw an interview with Scalia a week or two ago, and he said that SCOTUS only takes cases when there is an blatant conflict between to court rulings, usually in different states. It then falls on them to be the decision-makers. I don't see SCOTUS taking this on unless another state tries to interfere with a marriage in Massachusetts or California.

IIRC, I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that they wouldn't force other states to recognize gay marriage in Massachusetts. Their logic was that they didn't want to become the Vegas of gay marriage, when what should happen is all 50 states allow gay marriage.

[Kanastrous]

Unless someone can find, or invent an argument as to why SCOTUS gets to review it.

Given the current makeup of that court, I expect they'd seize upon any excuse to interfere, that they possibly could.

I actually highly doubt they would. They would duck the issue or claim no jurisdiction, of which they have none.

I do too. Some of the staunchest social conservatives on the court are also fans of small federal government. I don't know much about all the justices, but I think that Justice Scalia, for example, is honest enough to say that SCOTUS can't rule on this interpretation of a state constitution.

"Scalia" and "honest" in the same sentence.

Now I have seen everything .

I hope you're right.

[Terralthra]

So is this most likely to go to the US Supreme Court when some other state won't recognize a mariage that is legal in California?

Pretty much. I saw an interview with Scalia a week or two ago, and he said that SCOTUS only takes cases when there is an blatant conflict between to court rulings, usually in different states. It then falls on them to be the decision-makers. I don't see SCOTUS taking this on unless another state tries to interfere with a marriage in Massachusetts or California.

IIRC, I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that they wouldn't force other states to recognize gay marriage in Massachusetts. Their logic was that they didn't want to become the Vegas of gay marriage, when what should happen is all 50 states allow gay marriage.

Moreover, the MA or CA Supreme Courts can't force jack or shit on that regard. They can only rule with respect to their state constitutions. If another state is going to be forced to on the basis of the MA or CA rulings, it will be a case that goes before the SCOTUS on Full Faith and Credit grounds, and it will test the constitutionality of the DoMA.

[Molyneux]

So is this most likely to go to the US Supreme Court when some other state won't recognize a mariage that is legal in California?

Pretty much. I saw an interview with Scalia a week or two ago, and he said that SCOTUS only takes cases when there is an blatant conflict between to court rulings, usually in different states. It then falls on them to be the decision-makers. I don't see SCOTUS taking this on unless another state tries to interfere with a marriage in Massachusetts or California.

IIRC, I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that they wouldn't force other states to recognize gay marriage in Massachusetts. Their logic was that they didn't want to become the Vegas of gay marriage, when what should happen is all 50 states allow gay marriage.

Moreover, the MA or CA Supreme Courts can't force jack or shit on that regard. They can only rule with respect to their state constitutions. If another state is going to be forced to on the basis of the MA or CA rulings, it will be a case that goes before the SCOTUS on Full Faith and Credit grounds, and it will test the constitutionality of the DoMA.

Hrm.
Is there any real chance that the DoMA would pass that test?
I'm asking for honest opinion, here. I'm not exactly a legal scholar, and a lot of people around here have much more experience than I.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Pretty much. I saw an interview with Scalia a week or two ago, and he said that SCOTUS only takes cases when there is an blatant conflict between to court rulings, usually in different states. It then falls on them to be the decision-makers. I don't see SCOTUS taking this on unless another state tries to interfere with a marriage in Massachusetts or California.

IIRC, I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that they wouldn't force other states to recognize gay marriage in Massachusetts. Their logic was that they didn't want to become the Vegas of gay marriage, when what should happen is all 50 states allow gay marriage.

Moreover, the MA or CA Supreme Courts can't force jack or shit on that regard. They can only rule with respect to their state constitutions. If another state is going to be forced to on the basis of the MA or CA rulings, it will be a case that goes before the SCOTUS on Full Faith and Credit grounds, and it will test the constitutionality of the DoMA.

Hrm.
Is there any real chance that the DoMA would pass that test?
I'm asking for honest opinion, here. I'm not exactly a legal scholar, and a lot of people around here have much more experience than I.

If we did not have ideologically driven judges, no. The DoMA is a blatant and frankly prima facia violation of the full faith and credit clause.

[Schuyler Colfax]

This is a great start to something that I hope others states will be doing in the coming years and I thought of this from a money perspective just now, Cally's gonna get paid.

[Duckie]

I don't think it would be wise at this point in time to challenge DoMA on the full faith and credit thing with a single lawsuit, because it's almost undoubtedly going to fail.

But at very minimum it can't get worse- the Supreme Court can't ban gay marriage, and it's already been proved that the Republicans can't marshal enough party discipline to ram through a constitutional amendment.

I'm predicting based on the example of womens' suffrage (a picture of the states and their times of legalization) that we'll have news like this every few years, with another state legalizing it. And only once about a third or half of the individual states have legalized it will it finally be universally applied.

It's even more of a mug's game to guess specific dates than trends, but I'm calling it at about 2030 for gay marriage being accepted in all states, assuming it takes twice the time (arbitrarily) as long as the same amount of time as Womens' Suffrage did in proportion from the 1st to second state until the federal level.

(1869 Wyoming, 1896 Colorado means 50 years between, whereas it was 5 here, which would imply federal level by 2018, which I find unlikely, so I doubled it for 2028 or about 2030.)

[Kitsune]

George Takei to Marry