Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
So far, our definition of marriage has only included as between a man and a woman. This court decision alters that distinction. I think such definitions are solely the province of legislatures and I agree with many that this is about as "activist" a decision as I've ever seen.
|
I agree that this kind of question belongs in the legislature.
Here's the opinion, BTW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
[A voter initiative overturning the decision will] be tough to do. . . . I'd be interested to know whether the California Supreme Court found that the protection here was in the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.
|
The Court relied on the California Constitution, not the United States Constitution. The voter initiative will be to amend the Constitution; according to the news this morning, supporters of the constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and woman already have enough signatures to get it on the ballot in November. That being so, they may ask the California Supreme Court to stay its decision until then.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with it, since in this case the court was considering a 2000 voter initiative that by statute limited marriage to a man and woman. Accordining to the Wiki, it passed with 61% voting in favor. I wonder if that might mean that this initiative also has a decent chance of passing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jon1856
"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6169783.story |
I really don't mean this to sound as flippant as it's going to sound, but my experience is that California courts are not likely to influence courts around the country very often. I recall one law professor describing California court decisions as "what did we eat for breakfast this morning" decisions. The reality is that in many parts of the country, as far as I have seen, citation of a California decision will be met with "yeah, well that's California."
That aside, this is a decision interpreting the California Constitution. Given that about half the states already have provisions in their state constitutions forbidding same-sex marriage (and I wonder if that number will rise now), the decision will be irrelevant in those states. In the remaining states, whether it is influential can turn not only on the predilictions of the judges but on how similar the language and jurisprudence of other's states constitutional provisions are to California's.
Threaded Mode
