@Woiyo9,
Wrong -- the court state the judges hands were because but it wasn't in the courts power to strike down an amendment. It could not be construed by the court to be a revision where the legislature would have to ratify the voter outcome. Whether they each believe it was discrimination and wrong was not a factor. It's only the word "marriage" that was disconnected from existing California law for civil partnerships:
California high court upholds Prop. 8
The justices uphold the same-sex marriage ban but also rule that the 18,000 gay couples who wed before November will stay married. The decision is sure to spark another ballot box fight.
By Maura Dolan
May 27, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.
In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.
The court was unanimous in deciding that an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the November election would continue to have their marriages recognized by the state.
Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.
The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.
"Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right," George wrote.[/b]
UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."
In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."
She agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision, but said the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.
Describing Proposition 8's "limited effect," the majority said that simply reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples "does not have a substantial, or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment."
In deciding that gay couples who married in California before the November election will remain married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.
Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.
Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.
The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution.
"If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."
It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote.
"We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.
By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.
But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical.
Balance of article is here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage27-2009may27,0,7752874.story
I realize the gloaters are not going to delve into reading everything including the entire decision and I've discusses it with my attorney friend (and client) yesterday afternoon who is now an Orange County District Attorney. A California gay couple could apply for a marriage license and it would be refused. They then can appeal to the courts on the wording of the California amendment and take it clear to the USSC. What a short memory some have on this forum. They don't remember the striking down of sodomy laws due to one case in Texas?
I agree that we're dealing with semantics, that the word marriage is only an objection not of the actual right to form a domestic union but using a loaded word that somehow denotes religious sanction. The point has been that the word doesn't denote religious sanction and a civil union may have a ceremony in a church (the nationwide Metropolitan Communit Church does it all the time). That's where the tangling of semantics begins to occur. The same words of a ceremony can be used without the word marriage but if the word is used, there is no legal ramification. This is more complex than the simpletons will ever figure out, so when the Proposition show up on the ballot next year to allow marriage licenses instead of civil union licenses, they same battle will take place but I'm doubting the Mormons will want to again be financially involved.
From Lone Star Times:
California Supremes Uphold Voters’ Gay Marriage Ban
by RickG · 05/26/2009 1:47 pm
By a 6-1 vote, the California Supreme Court has upheld a ban on gay marriage voted by the public, noting that the citizens have a right to change their constitution through the ballot box.
That may seem an elementary proposition, but remember that many state officials, including moonbat attorney general Jerry Brown and failed governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, were against the ban and hoped the Surpeme Court would decide that the people could not prohibit gay marriage (even by changing the consitution) because it was such a fundamental right. Brown even went against the public he supposedly represents by pressing the court to overturn the ban.
The court concluded:
“In a sense, petitioners’ and the attorney general’s complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it.”
(The politicians argued that any such measure was too important to allow the people to vote unless the measure was first approved by the legislature.)
The decision was not a total win for traditional marriage advocates, as the court let stand the 18,000 gay marriages that occurred between the time the court ruled in favor of gay marriage and the time the ballot initiative banned it.
Gay activists immediately promised to take the fight back to the ballot box hoping to repeal the ban.
End of quote
By next year it's not hard to figure out that there will be seven, eight or even nine states allowing gay marriage and more allowing civil unions. Your so-called "facts," are not facts at all.
