Judge rules Proposition 8 unconstitutional

[rossum]

putting on prophet’s hat

This case will go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will confirm Judge Walker’s decision. From there it will go to SCOTUS, which on a party-line 5-4 vote will overturn the decision, thus restoring Proposition 8, and at the same time maintaining the 9th’s reputation as the most overturned CPA in the country.

taking off prophet’s hat

I agree that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will probably confirm Judge Walker’s decision. I am not so sure that the pro-Prop 8 side will take it to SCotUS since all they stand to gain is California, while if they lose there then they lose all the States. Given that everything comes down to one vote from Justice Kennedy will they really want to take that risk? Judge Walker quoted a lot of precedents from Justice Kennedy in his judgement.

<mode=Clint Eastwood>Do you feel lucky?

rossum

 

[irishpatrick]

A ruling that limiting civil marriage contracts to one many and one woman is unconstitutional in no way implies that marriages between a man and a woman are unconstitutional.

When the court ruled that limiting marriage to people of the same race was unconstitutional, that did not suddenly mean that all marriages between white men and white women or black men and black women were unconstitutional.

The ruling says that the definition of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. That means every marriage under that defintion was unconstitutional in the eyes of that judge.

 

[irishpatrick]

I agree that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will probably confirm Judge Walker’s decision. I am not so sure that the pro-Prop 8 side will take it to SCotUS since all they stand to gain is California, while if they lose there then they lose all the States. Given that everything comes down to one vote from Justice Kennedy will they really want to take that risk? Judge Walker quoted a lot of precedents from Justice Kennedy in his judgement.

<mode=Clint Eastwood>Do you feel lucky?

rossum

On the other hand, CA is a huge state and if it stands, than other states will got hat way anyway. Might as well push it the SC and hope for sanity there.

 

[Charlotte1776]

AIUI it is a change in the legal arrangements for marriage and has no effect on the Church. American law allows for divorce while Church law does not. I imagine that the arrangements will be similar. A divorced person is seen as unmarried in the eyes of the law but still married to their old spouse in the eyes of the Church.

A gay couple would be seen as married in the eyes of the law and unmarried in the eyes of the Church.

The same situation applies in the UK with respect to Civil Partnerships, they are recognised by the law but not by most religious bodies.

rossum

I know that this will not make the Church change it’s stance on gay “marriage.” What I am asking is whether the state will crack down the Church for refusing to conduct these false unions, will it lose tax exempt status, will priests be jailed for “hate speech,” etc.

 

[Charlotte1776]

The ruling says that the definition of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. That means every marriage under that defintion was unconstitutional in the eyes of that judge.

Actually, I don’t think it means that. It was like the ruling that says limiting marriage to people of the same race was unconstitional - same-race marriage was still legal, but now mixed-race marriages are legal as well.

 

[constantseeker]

The ruling says that the definition of one man and one woman is unconstitutional. That means every marriage under that defintion was unconstitutional in the eyes of that judge.

No. The limitation is unconstitutional, not the marriages that occurred under it.

You’ve been given the comparison to miscegenation. It’s apt.

How about another?

When voting rights were extended to women and minorities, that didn’t invalidate previous elections.