Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage

[Psi U MC Vito]

So MC or one of the other legal eagles, what does the prop 8 case lacking standing mean? Does the circuit court's ruling stand, or does it mean that the federal government was never involved and the California Supreme Court is the deciding party?

[Kevin]

What happened was the Prop 8 case was won at the District Court level and Prop 8 was overturned. The governor and AG declined to appeal. The courts allowed a special interest group to appeal. It was held that the special interest group had no standing to appeal because they hadn't been directly injured in any way. The practical effect is that gay marriage in California is now a thing.

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by pshsx1

Plus, it's going to take another case to get marriages recognized across different states.

Can someone explain to me exactly what DOMA being declared unconstitutional means, then?

I thought that it meant that all states had to recognize same-sex marriages and grant same-sex couples equal rights, even if they didn't perform the marriages in the state.

[Kevin]

Only one part of DOMA was declared unconstitutional, that's the part where the federal government was not allowed to recognize same sex unions even if the states recognized those unions. The opinion tosses the "am I married?" issue squarely in the laps of the states.

Surviving is a part which says that states don't have to honor marriages contracted in other states, so whether a statute like that can survive the equal protection/privileges and immunities clauses is a fight for another day.

[maconmagnolia]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Only one part of DOMA was declared unconstitutional, that's the part where the federal government was not allowed to recognize same sex unions even if the states recognized those unions. The opinion tosses the "am I married?" issue squarely in the laps of the states.

Surviving is a part which says that states don't have to honor marriages contracted in other states, so whether a statute like that can survive the equal protection/privileges and immunities clauses is a fight for another day.

So now if a state recognizes a same-sex union, the federal government has to do so?

Thanks for the information.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Surviving is a part which says that states don't have to honor marriages contracted in other states, so whether a statute like that can survive the equal protection/privileges and immunities clauses is a fight for another day.

Wouldn't the Full Faith and Credit Clause also be an issue?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Wouldn't the Full Faith and Credit Clause also be an issue?

Yes.

And it was on the tip of my tongue.. or fingers as it were.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by maconmagnolia

So now if a state recognizes a same-sex union, the federal government has to do so?

Thanks for the information.

Correct. So the 11 or 12 states which have same-sex marriage will now enjoy having their same-sex couples not treated as second-rate citizens by our federal government.

[DGTess]

I'm particularly happy today for my DG sister in California, who married her wife years ago, saw their marriage struck down, married her again, adopted children, and has been waiting in hopes the bigots didn't succeed in interfering yet again.

Not done, Libby, but getting closer!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

MC, how do you interpret the tea leaves in all of the dicta about how marriage is this fundamental province of the states, but of course subject to certain restrictions? (the Court cited Loving v. Virginia several times).

It looks promising...

Unlike yesterday, when I really had time to study the VRA case, I barely had time to skim the decisions today. I'll weigh in when I've had a chance to really read them.

And ditto just about everything else you've said/explained.

[thetalady]

MC, does this decision also mean that religious leaders of all faiths will be required to perform same sex marriages? Could they be prosecuted for discrimination if they refuse? or is that an issue coming later down the road?

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by thetalady

MC, does this decision also mean that religious leaders of all faiths will be required to perform same sex marriages? Could they be prosecuted for discrimination if they refuse? or is that an issue coming later down the road?

Though you didn't address the question to me, I can state that when I went to get married, the first prelate we approached refused to perform the ceremony, even though we were both free to marry, as my fiance was divorced and of another faith.

Logic would then dictate that a faith leader can refuse to perform a ceremony based on the teachings of that faith.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by thetalady

MC, does this decision also mean that religious leaders of all faiths will be required to perform same sex marriages? Could they be prosecuted for discrimination if they refuse? or is that an issue coming later down the road?

Not remotely possible.

See the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

[PiKA2001]

[thetalady]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Not remotely possible.

See the First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise clauses.

thanks for the info everybody! I appreciate it.

An interesting read that also helped, thanks to Mary Poppins

A 30 Second Guide to How the Gay Marriage Ruling Affects You