# California SC overturns gay marriage ban **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 15, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459 "2008-05-15T17:22:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/61 "2008-05-16T05:56:10Z")
[QUOTE=Maureen] Ditto. šŸ™‚ Should it pass, I have absolutely no clue where weā€™d go from there. [/QUOTE] Wait five years and amend the constitution again? By then support for SSM should be there. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/62 "2008-05-16T06:05:34Z")
[QUOTE=Sunspace] Canada, Netherlands, and South Africa were also destroyed by God. > [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Soon California will be destroyed by God, just as Mexico, Spain, and Massachusetts were! Have we learned nothing from history? Flee! Flee! Which means that, as a resident of Canada, I am apparently living in Limbo. Odd. It just seems like a pleasant spring day here. We even get US television. [/QUOTE] Will someone think of the Norwegian children??? ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/63 "2008-05-16T08:16:47Z")
A couple years ago I discovered that Iā€™m still registered to vote in California, where I havenā€™t lived since 2002. I know it might be a bit unethical, but Iā€™m going to go ahead and get me an absentee ballot this time around so I can vote against this amendment. A great day for my home state! And I think thereā€™s a good chance the proposed amendment will fail. The SSM act was passed in 2000 with 61% of the vote. A lot has changed since then. **ETA:** This isnā€™t scientific, but the LA Timesā€™ story includes an opinion poll, and with almost 23,000 responses, 81% say they think the SC made the right decision. A good sign! ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/64 "2008-05-16T08:46:59Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] Presumably the couples involved got their license fee back. [/QUOTE] No, they didnā€™t. In fact, I believe the papers they signed in San Francisco specifically stated that there was no refund, even if the license was later declared void (as it was). So the City of San Francisco collected something like a half million dollars of extra fees from that, and will presumably collect the same amount again if all those couples come back to get another marriage license, a legal one this time. (And if the California Constitutional Amendment outlawing same-sex marriage passes in November, it will likely include language voiding any such marriages performed between Jun 15th and Nov 4th. But the couples would still not get their marriage license fees refunded.) I suppose they might be able to deduct them from their taxes as a ā€˜bad investmentā€™ or something. ---
**Author:** ![Jeeves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@Jeeves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeeves)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/65 "2008-05-16T13:54:12Z")
Actually they did refund the money. A few weeks after it was invalidated, we got a letter offering to refund our money, or if we returned a signed form, donate it to the legal fund set up to take the case to court. We donated our money. The letter also stated that after SSmarriage became legal in California, if we wanted to get married in San Francisco again they would waive the fees. A real class act on the part of the city. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/66 "2008-05-16T14:27:07Z")
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net] ā€¦(And if the California Constitutional Amendment outlawing same-sex marriage passes in November, it will likely include language voiding any such marriages performed between Jun 15th and Nov 4th. But the couples would still not get their marriage license fees refunded.)ā€¦ [/QUOTE] Assuming the SCC doesnā€™t stay itā€™s ruling until after the election I doubt any marriages conducted before will be retroactivelly invalidated. When the Nazis banned Ayran/Jewish marriage in 1935 even they didnā€™t disolve mixed marriages already in existence. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/67 "2008-05-16T17:19:18Z")
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net] (And if the California Constitutional Amendment outlawing same-sex marriage passes in November, it will likely include language voiding any such marriages performed between Jun 15th and Nov 4th. But the couples would still not get their marriage license fees refunded.) [/QUOTE] An anti-marriage amendment petition has already been submitted for certification to the CA Sec of Stateā€™s office. There are a few different amendments floating around the interwebs but I think the text below is the proposed amendment: > [@](#): > > Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable. So not only would this prevent same-sex couples from marrying, it would also bar transpeople from marrying someone who has the same genetic makeup. Apparently the state of California would have to implement genetic testing as part of the licensing process to make sure none of those trannies slip in under the radar. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/68 "2008-05-16T17:22:08Z")
> [@](#): > > or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable. This just might kill their chance of passing it. This would void domestic partnerships and they have good support around here. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/69 "2008-05-16T17:28:51Z")
[QUOTE=alphaboi867] Can domestic partners marry _eachother_ without dissolving their partnership first? [/QUOTE] If I had to hazard a guess, it would be that should the marriage amendment fail the CA legislature will pass a bill allowing for DPs to convert their existing DP to a marriage. That strikes me as the most logical solution. The state did something similar when it expanded the older DP law to the current more comprehensive one. If DPs didnā€™t proactively dissolve the partnership by the date the law took effect they would automatically be in an expanded DP under the new law. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/70 "2008-05-16T17:35:18Z")
[QUOTE=Antinor01] This just might kill their chance of passing it. This would void domestic partnerships and they have good support around here. [/QUOTE] Wow! Theyā€™re really shooting themselves in the foot with this one. They should have just left it as marriage is defined as one man and one woman, without more. Iā€™m glad they put all that extra stuff in there to give people more reason to vote NO. ---
**Author:** ![ArizonaTeach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArizonaTeach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArizonaTeach)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/71 "2008-05-16T18:19:39Z")
[QUOTE=Bearflag70] Wow! Theyā€™re really shooting themselves in the foot with this one. They should have just left it as marriage is defined as one man and one woman, without more. Iā€™m glad they put all that extra stuff in there to give people more reason to vote NO. [/QUOTE] Thatā€™s kinda what killed the SSM bill here in Arizona. ---
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2008, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/72 "2008-05-16T20:43:48Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] ā€¦So not only would this prevent same-sex couples from marrying, it would also bar transpeople from marrying someone who has the same genetic makeup. Apparently the state of California would have to implement genetic testing as part of the licensing process to make sure none of those trannies slip in under the radar. [/QUOTE] Not just transpeople. There are genetic disorders that can lead to females with a y chromosome and males without one. ---
**Author:** ![elelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@elelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elelle)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2008, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/73 "2008-05-17T04:48:32Z")
I shouted out loud seeing this on the news yesterday, and am hopeful that itā€™ll pave the way. A nice shout out too for San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who was shown right in the midst of the celebration, hugging people and happy for his constituents. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2008, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/74 "2008-05-17T05:22:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency, initiative statute, local government, or government official shall ā€¦ decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman Seems like this part might contribute to killing it, too. That decrease the statutory rights part ā€“ I think a smart lawyer could argue that various laws, like the California community property law, or child support laws, or restrictions on cutting an ex-spouse out of pension benefits are decreasing the rights of one of the marriage partners, and so challenge them on that basis. Rather like the judicial rulings that the Michigan anti-gay-marriage law ended up invalidating Michiganā€™s domestic abuse laws for everyone except married couples. Protection from domestic violence was an appertainance of marriage, and so this law prohibited providing it to unmarried couples. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/75 "2008-05-19T03:01:13Z")
[QUOTE=Bearflag70] Wow! Theyā€™re really shooting themselves in the foot with this one. They should have just left it as marriage is defined as one man and one woman, without more. Iā€™m glad they put all that extra stuff in there to give people more reason to vote NO. [/QUOTE] Iā€™m sorry, but are you assuming that people will actually read that many words in a ballot measure? Good luck. ā˜¹ I always worry when a decision is ā€œput to the people.ā€ And if that thing were to pass and voids domestic partnerships too, I would absolutely _shit_. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/76 "2008-05-19T13:44:14Z")
Did the SCOTSC make its ruling based on the Constitution, or the CA Constitution? (Too lazy to read the opinion) ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/77 "2008-05-19T14:18:56Z")
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright] Did the SCOTSC make its ruling based on the Constitution, or the CA Constitution? (Too lazy to read the opinion) [/QUOTE] And apparently too lazy to read the thread, which notes repeatedly that the decision was based entirely on the California constitution and thus may not be appealed to the US Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/78 "2008-05-19T14:53:49Z")
[QUOTE=alphaboi867] Can domestic partners marry _eachother_ without dissolving their partnership first? šŸ˜• I suppose the domestic partnership law will need to be changed to allow opposite-sex couples under 62 to partner as well. [/QUOTE] On Internet Infidels (where I belong to a Christian group they gave sanctuary to ;)), an older woman Californian law professor and retired lawyer with a specialty in family law cited a legal-analysis write-up that suggested that marriage and DP were two distinct relationships which could co-exist. I donā€™t have the link, but you might want to Google for it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2008, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459/79 "2008-05-19T15:09:08Z")
[QUOTE=Otto] And apparently too lazy to read the thread, which notes repeatedly that the decision was based entirely on the California constitution and thus may not be appealed to the US Supreme Court. [/QUOTE] I read the thread. I missed that. Donā€™t kill me! Incidentally, Yay! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-sc-overturns-gay-marriage-ban/449459.md?page=3)