# California Marriage Cases - Speculation and Discussion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2008, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343 "2008-05-14T21:41:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![HoldenCaulfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/22d042/32.png) [@HoldenCaulfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoldenCaulfield)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/1 "2008-05-14T21:41:34Z")
Turns out the California Supreme Court will be releasing its decision tomorrow in the same-sex marriage cases: > **[California high court set to rule on gay marriage](https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/05/14/california-high-court-set-to-rule-on-gay-marriage/)** > > California high court set to rule on gay marriage Watching the oral arguments in March, I definitely got the impression that they were at least close to a majority for ruling in favor of SSM. Kennard was definitely on board. And I can’t remember any specifics, but IIRC it seemed like Werdegar and Moreno may have been leaning in favor as well. I think the Chief Justice was considered to be on the fence by commentators, but he seemed to be making a lot of arguments from the bench in favor of SSM. I wouldn’t be surprised if we have marriage equality in California effective tomorrow. If anyone else has any last minute speculation, I’d like to hear it, and then when the decision comes out we can discuss it here. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/2 "2008-05-14T22:10:58Z")
God, I hope they don’t decide in favor of SSM. We’ll get it through the legislative branch soon enough, but if the courts force it on us, I don’t know what’s going to happen. And that will not be good for the Democrats come November. n.b.: I fully support SSM, but I believe it is something that the people need to decide. We’re getting there through the legislative branch (we’d already have it if Arnold hadn’t vetoed) slowly-- first domestic partners, then we’ll have full marriage as soon as the new Democratic governor is sworn in after Arnold. I think it’s pretty likely to be a Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/3 "2008-05-14T22:25:00Z")
I’m torn on the subject. As much as I would love to see SSM legalized here I fear it could hurt us in November. Especially if the constitutional amendment to ban it makes it on the ballot. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/4 "2008-05-14T22:32:10Z")
I wouldn’t be surprised if a SSM ballot initiative passed in CA now (or an anti-SSM ballot initiative failed). Prop 22 was, IIRC, in 2000. Things have changed so much since then. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2008, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/5 "2008-05-14T22:43:05Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] I wouldn’t be surprised if a SSM ballot initiative passed in CA now (or an anti-SSM ballot initiative failed). Prop 22 was, IIRC, in 2000. Things have changed so much since then. [/QUOTE] I would like to believe so as well. But there’s nothing like a court decision they don’t like to get the right up in arms. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/6 "2008-05-15T03:51:07Z")
[QUOTE=Antinor01] I would like to believe so as well. But there’s nothing like a court decision they don’t like to get the right up in arms. [/QUOTE] I’m so fucking tired of walking on eggshells so we don’t upset the dinosaurs and bigots. Fuck 'em… ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/7 "2008-05-15T03:56:16Z")
[QUOTE=jayjay] I’m so fucking tired of walking on eggshells so we don’t upset the dinosaurs and bigots. Fuck 'em… [/QUOTE] I don’t disagree. The problem here is that they are well on their way to getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot here in CA to stop SSM permanently. It’s a tough balancing act when you’re trying to claim your rights in the face of so many people that feel giving them to you is morally wrong and that they have a mandate from their god to stop you from getting them. ---
**Author:** ![HoldenCaulfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/22d042/32.png) [@HoldenCaulfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoldenCaulfield)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/8 "2008-05-15T06:03:31Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] God, I hope they don’t decide in favor of SSM. We’ll get it through the legislative branch soon enough, but if the courts force it on us, I don’t know what’s going to happen. And that will not be good for the Democrats come November. n.b.: I fully support SSM, but I believe it is something that the people need to decide. We’re getting there through the legislative branch (we’d already have it if Arnold hadn’t vetoed) slowly-- first domestic partners, then we’ll have full marriage as soon as the new Democratic governor is sworn in after Arnold. I think it’s pretty likely to be a Democrat. [/QUOTE] I definitely feel this, too, and the idea that it’ll happen anyway would make a loss in the court not so bad in the long run, but I also feel **jayjay** ’s frustration. But if the court decides for SSM, even the prospect of a hard fight through November won’t keep me from celebrating for at least tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/9 "2008-05-15T11:29:04Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] God, I hope they don’t decide in favor of SSM. We’ll get it through the legislative branch soon enough, but if the courts force it on us, I don’t know what’s going to happen. And that will not be good for the Democrats come November. n.b.: I fully support SSM, but I believe it is something that the people need to decide. We’re getting there through the legislative branch (we’d already have it if Arnold hadn’t vetoed) slowly-- first domestic partners, then we’ll have full marriage as soon as the new Democratic governor is sworn in after Arnold. I think it’s pretty likely to be a Democrat. [/QUOTE] There’s one problem with this argument: While I fully favor granting Libertarians the same freedom of speech enjoyed by Liberals and Conservatives, I don’t think that a judge who is appointed, not elected, mandating it from the bench is appropriate. They should have the commpn decency to shut up and wait until the legislature gets around to awarding it to them. Wouldn’t you agree? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/10 "2008-05-15T13:10:32Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] There’s one problem with this argument: While I fully favor granting Libertarians the same freedom of speech enjoyed by Liberals and Conservatives, I don’t think that a judge who is appointed, not elected, mandating it from the bench is appropriate. They should have the commpn decency to shut up and wait until the legislature gets around to awarding it to them. Wouldn’t you agree? [/QUOTE] Yes. Fortunately, the legislatures already have, by passing the First Amendment to the US Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/11 "2008-05-15T13:21:02Z")
[QUOTE=Polycarp] There’s one problem with this argument: While I fully favor granting Libertarians the same freedom of speech enjoyed by Liberals and Conservatives, I don’t think that a judge who is appointed, not elected, mandating it from the bench is appropriate. They should have the commpn decency to shut up and wait until the legislature gets around to awarding it to them. Wouldn’t you agree? [/QUOTE] Oh, come on. There is no way to read the 1st amendment to say Libertarians don’t have free speech. It’s in the US constitution and (I assume) the CA constitution. The people of CA have spoken w/ prop 22. The people can speak again to revoke prop 22. I think we’re ready to do that (or very soon will be). ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/12 "2008-05-15T17:04:35Z")
The decision has been handed down. [Site Has Moved](http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.DOC) ---
**Author:** ![HoldenCaulfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/22d042/32.png) [@HoldenCaulfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoldenCaulfield)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/13 "2008-05-15T17:10:09Z")
Long opinion. George, Kennard, Werdegar, and Moreno **are** in the majority, and they struck down Prop 22. Booyah. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/14 "2008-05-15T17:16:00Z")
The court overturned the ban. This is going to get interesting… ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/15 "2008-05-15T17:19:18Z")
[QUOTE=CA supreme court decision] Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional. [/QUOTE] If I’m reading this right, they are applying strict scrutiny instead of rational basis. I’ll need a lawyer to explain it fully. ---
**Author:** ![HoldenCaulfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/22d042/32.png) [@HoldenCaulfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoldenCaulfield)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/16 "2008-05-15T17:21:47Z")
From the opinion: > [@](#): > > In the present case, it is readily apparent that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples clearly is more consistent with the probable > legislative intent than withholding that designation from both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in favor of some other, uniform designation. In view of the lengthy history of the use of the term “marriage” to describe the family relationship here at issue, and the importance that both the supporters of the 1977 amendment to the marriage statutes and the electors who voted in favor of Proposition 22 unquestionably attached to the designation of marriage, there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference. > > Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that **the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute** , and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand. > > **Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court.** **John** , that’s a good way to put it. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/17 "2008-05-15T17:27:22Z")
[QUOTE=Antinor01] The decision has been handed down. [Site Has Moved](http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.DOC) [/QUOTE] Long winded, aren’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/18 "2008-05-15T17:29:24Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] Long winded, aren’t they? [/QUOTE] Just a tad. 🙂 I still need a better explanation of rational basis, strict scrutiny and all that. From my understanding, they are saying that sexual orientation qualifies as a suspect classification and it seems that is a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/19 "2008-05-15T17:32:40Z")
John McCain couldn’t have asked for a better present. The anti-gay bigots are now officially mobilized for the fall. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2008, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343/20 "2008-05-15T17:44:15Z")
Arnold has come out (no pun intended) against the proposed state constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and a woman. That should help quash that effort, I think. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-marriage-cases-speculation-and-discussion/449343.md?page=2)