a legal eagle on andrew sullivan's blog thinks this is a good day for gay marriage rights...

I'm not even close to a legal eagle - could some legal du'r break this down for me????

******************

Have been through the Prop 8 opinion and dissents. It appears that this is a blockbuster pro-gay-rights decision, restricting the effect of Prop 8 to the effect of removing the designation of gay civil unions as "marriage," but upholding all equal rights previously declared by the Court; and, suggesting that if the opponents of gay rights were to try to restrict equal union rights for gays by constitutional change, such change would be an Amendment (not a revision) and thus would be procedurally much more difficult to accomplish.

Being able to lay claim to the word "marriage" is important, but in all other respects this appears to be a spectacular decision in favor of gay rights.

The decision leaves intact the holding of the Marriage Cases that gays have the fundamental "right to marry" under the California constitution, now and in the future; but unless and until the California constitution is again amended to the contrary, such unions cannot be called marriage.

Opponents of gay civil union rights could try another ballot initiative to expressly amend the constitution to ban such rights, but under the Court's ruling, that proposed amendment would have to ban such rights expressly to be effective. The Court's opinion makes clear that generally, amendments will not be interpreted to repeal constitutional rights by implication. The disfavor of repeal by implication is a longstanding legal principle, and the Court's use of it here is a deft way of sending this issue back to the political process while upholding gay civil union rights for the foreseeable future. Under this approach by the Court, opponents of gay civil union rights would have to word any future proposed amendments in such a way as to expressly ban gay civil union rights, and as a result, their ability to secure a sufficient number of petition signatures to get the amendment on the ballot, and then a majority of votes at the polls, will be all the more difficult.

This is a very, very good day for the cause of gay marriage rights.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/reading-the-decision.html

and worse video for the evening news

it's been a long day. please talk in short sentences.

what I've been beat to hell and back for saying all day long... they only reserved the word for straight couples, not the rights. ALL marital rights stand.

"We emphasize only that among the various constitutional protections recognized in the Marriage Cases as 8 available to same-sex couples, it is only the designation of marriage — albeit significant — that has been removed by this initiative measure."

:shrug:

Otherwise, they'd be good to go. Which is why I've been saying all day, there needs to be a law passed pronto to extend *something* and all the better if that *something* is the exact same word for everybody. Regardless, families and couples need the legal protections and I hope they hurry up and get the legislation done so that there will be some license at the county courthouse pdq.

So, it looks like DP's remain the status for gays.

'Under this approach by the Court, opponents of gay civil union rights would have to word any future proposed amendments in such a way as to expressly ban gay civil union rights, and as a result, their ability to secure a sufficient number of petition signatures to get the amendment on the ballot, and then a majority of votes at the polls, will be all the more difficult.'

Today's ruling was whether Prop 8 was an amendment (can be done via proposition) or a revision to the constitution (can only be done by a 2/3rds majority in the legislature). They ruled that it was an amendment and therefore stands.

So does that mean any future changes to the state constitution regarding gay marriage would have to be passed by the legislature now? In other words we can't overturn it with another proposition? But on the other hand since only the word "marriage" is outlawed, we could pass a law changing the name to civil unions? And gay marriage opponents couldn't revise their constitutional amendment to encompass civil unions because that would be a revision and would have to be done by the legislature? :shrug:

its only the word marriage, and nothing else got changed. All prior rights remain intact. Am I positive...hell no. But I am willing to wait for the legal beagles to chase through what is a complex dance of words.

So this decision is a ruling on symantics? I am confused. I want to cling to the hope that Sullivan seems to glean from this, but in the end, the ban on gay marriage stands. And the only word for that is ...

WRONG.

>>"In 2008, two of these groups moved<35> to qualify ballot initiatives to amend the California Constitution on the November 2008 ballot. One qualified as Proposition 8. The amendment eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry, but does not repeal any rights granted to domestic partnerships and registration for domestic partnerships remains legal in California.

Differences from Marriage
While domestic partners receive most of the benefits of marriage, several differences remain. These differences include, in part:

Couples seeking domestic partnership must already share a residence, married couples may be married without living together.
Couples seeking domestic partnership must be 18 or older, minors can be married before the age of 18 with the consent of their parents.
California permits married couples the option of confidential marriage, there is no equivalent institution for domestic partnerships. In confidential marriages, no witnesses are required and the marriage license is not a matter of public record.
Married partners of state employees are eligible for the CalPERS long-term care insurance plan, domestic partners are not.
There is, at least according to one appellate ruling, no equivalent of the Putative Spouse Doctrine for domestic partnerships. <3>
In addition to these differences specific to state law, should the Defense of Marriage Act be found unconstitutional or repealed, married persons in California might enjoy all the federal benefits of marriage, including Constitutionally-required recognition of their relationships as marriages in the rest of the United States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. <4>

In addition to these differences specific to the United States, some countries that recognize same-sex marriages performed in California as valid in their own country, (e.g., Israel <5>), do not recognize same-sex domestic partnerships performed in California.

Many supporters of same-sex marriage also argue that the use of the word marriage itself constitutes a significant social difference and in the majority opinion of In Re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court agreed, <4> suggesting an analogy with a hypothetical that branded interracial marriages "transracial unions."<< -wikipedia

My cousin and his (now) wife started off with a DP in California. They eventually got married because the DP wasn't cutting it. They got married in Mass because they wanted to say their vows in a state that supported marriage equality.

They very clearly said they upheld ALL civil rights that they granted in the Marriage Cases, and only allowed the amendment of the word marriage, not any of the rights.

And even if the new legal contract is called "domestic partnership", it will still have to extend the same rights marriage does.

but if I'm understanding it correctly, now we can legalize civil unions, and they can't go back and revise their amendment with another proposition because that would be a "revision" to the constitution and that must be done by a 2/3rds vote in the legislature? :shrug:

I may have that wrong though.

When Prop 8 passed, some of the other states were so appalled, they passed greater rights for gays. With this imminently stupid court decision, more states will likely pass retaliatory gay rights. And, in the end, California may have won a battle, but the war is already lost. Gays will get full equal rights, possibly within my lifetime and that's something I didn't expect to see. California really screwed up with this one. Teach them to let the Mormon's yank their chain.

The social conservatives are a dying breed. They just haven't had the common sense to lay down. Talk to teenagers or even younger kids about the gay menace to marriage and they'll look at you like you're an idiot. They are the future and they don't think gays should be treated any different than anyone else.

All the California absurdity has done is bring into high relief just how stupid it is to deny gays equal rights. Gays will get equal rights quicker than they might otherwise have because many people are so offended about this Mormon sponsored tragedy. Yeah, the California gays have lost some rights temporarily, rights they should never have lost, but in the long view, the gays have won and the Mormons have lost.

Understand now? Or just disagree?