As a CA native and current resident, and a gay man, I’m really quite curious what you mean by this. Could you enlighten me, please?
I must have missed something - since when to people have to pay for other people’s marriages?
Tax breaks etc.
At least in Ireland, the tax situation favours the married, so the introduction of gay marriage would effectively be subsidised.
The cost was (quite conservatively) worked out at €25 million in Ireland.
Ah, so you’re saying that if gay marriage were legal and recognized, the straight people would be forced to pay the additional costs for gays that gay people are already paying to subsidize straight marriages.
That would be so unfair.
In case anyone’s interested here are some of the differences between marriage and domestic partnership in California (& that’s just under state law). They aren’t equal.
You’re basing your argument about California upon the tax situation in Ireland? Wouldn’t it make more sense to research the situation in California before you make such a claim? Most analysts in California have indicated that same-sex marriage would result in a net increase in state revenue, from license fees, wedding spending, and tourism. And in the US, being married frequently results in paying higher taxes. I’d dig the cites out, but since you didn’t, I’ll assume you’re okay with me not doing so…
People have a short memory. How did we get where we could admend the constitution with a 50+ vote.
It use to require a 50+ vote to pass propposition that was a statue (law). And a 2/3 vote to pass a proposition that was a constitutional amendment.
Twenty or so years ago the Dems were getting voted down on what they kept trying to get passed. They put on a propositional constitutional amendment lowering the required vote to 50+%. Then they resubmitted several amendments to the voters and they passed around 52 to 53 %. I can not remember what they were about, I believe they all required a tax increase to fund the projects.
The sad and dangerous thing is we now have judges writing laws and declaring it legal. No matter what happens we are loosing.
Although Prop 8 doesn’t affect me personally (I’m straight), I was so sickened by its (likely) passage that I was unable to attend any of the parties celebrating Obama’s victory. I think Prop 8 is wrong through and through, and an ugly little piece of tokenism.
That said, the issue before the California Supreme Court is more narrow. Is Prop 8 a permissible state constitutional amendment? To that, I’m afraid the answer must be yes. People say, “But, you wouldn’t let the federal constitution be amended by mere majority vote.” Which, of course, is true. But, there is a difference. Two, actually.
First, by their terms, the federal and California constititons have different standard by which amendments are permitted. The federal constitution places high bars. The California constitution has a low one. As has been noted, the low California bar can’t be used to amend the federal constitution. But, that’s irrelevent here, as the federal courts have ruled there’s no federal right to same sex marriage. So, the California case protecting same had to be based on the California constitution. As to which the lower bar of amendment applies.
Second, historically, the federal and California constitutions have different purposes. The federal constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, has as its purpose limiting the powers of the federal government vis-a-vis the state goverments. In other words, it’s a check on the power of a national majority to affect local interests. By contrast, the California constitution is a mostly a statement by “the People” of what their legislature may do. These are different standards. Importantly, with all its warts, democracy is predominant in California legal theory.
Bottom line, I have assumed all along that the California constitutional objection to Prop 8 would fail. Indeed, I think it’s legally unsound. I remain hopeful that, within a few years, perhaps it’ll take a decade, we will reject separate-but-equal for gay marriage and move on to other things.
Are you implying that “sincerely held religious belief, or social beliefs” are separate from “simple bigotry,” or that they represent “complex” bigotry?
And as far as “subsidizing” same-sex marriages are concerned: Why should we have to subsidize straight people’s marriages? Plus . . . we, on average, have fewer kids than straight people, yet we have to “subsidize” the education of their kids.
It’s a very complex problem, because the case represents two (major) issues: 1) the legality of gay marriage and 2) the interplay and respective legitimacies of the CA intiative system and the judiciary.
I’m in the pool of people who think that Prop 8 never should’ve been on the ballot, never should’ve passed, and was overwhelmingly the result of simple bigotry. I want gay persons to be able to marry each other. But I’m not sure that having the CA Supreme Court overturn Prop 8 is the best way to do that. Prop 8 itself came about because the CA SC was the one to allow gay marriage in the first place, and a lot of people see that as “legislating from the bench” and not as legitimate as a vote of the legislature or an initiative ballot. If the SC does it again, when Prop 8 was, in a way, a direct “we want this law, don’t change it SC” argument… well, it could turn out badly. The whole revision-not-amendment thing seems to be a petty technicality anyways.
The real reason to overturn it would be a violation of a more fundamental right (such as Equal Protection), but doing so would turn it into a (US) Constituional issue and send it up to the US Supreme Court. And I think that would be a loser for gay marriage, and possibly set it back many years than otherwise might be the case.
A lot of this could’ve been solved if CA simply didn’t have a ridiculously easy amendment process. Only requireing a 50% vote of the people is just a bad idea all around.
I’m in CA, and I am still shocked by the fact it actually passed in November.
I voted against it. I read it like, “Women can’t vote, Asians will remain behind this fence and blacks will use these particular water fountains. Oh, and gays can’t marry.”
Same flipping boat. The discrimination boat.
Let’s all remember that one prop (which I voted against) was for better standards for keeping chickens in cages in chicken farms. That passed with flying colors.
So chickens who will be eaten got noticed and got better solutions until the fateful day.
With Prop 8, It’s a much bigger issue to most. People and change = long time. I don’t remember reading any stories about how slaves were immediately released, hugged, and given money the moment the emancipation proclamation was signed. Seems we still get used to that.
The Prop 8 attention is one step, and a big one. Like another poster posted (I apologize for not finding it), next election, those who made the prop slip through last time will be voted out. People hear about the issues lashed out in media and more people might vote against such action next time.
I’m really only going by this because, like me, when I voted in CA, I thought it wasn’t an issue, especially in a state with a rep for “radical” reformation. Those on the other side might have thought the same. I REALLY didn’t think the parades, boycotts, etc. would happen, but since they did, I really think if we voted again, today, it would be overturned. Some for change, some just to shut others up.
Shrug
Ireland and most of Europe give tax incentives one way or another to married couples, so it never occurred to me that America would be any different, particularly since you are far more religious then us.
With all the talk about family that your politicians do, I just assumed that you had a similar situation.
This is not a new comment, but it bears repeating: Most laws passed in the last 50 years or so were intended to decrease discrimination, but this one stands out as one that increases it.
Many laws are intended to wipe out bigotry, but this one enforces it.
But what about us gay chickens? 
The US tax code was designed to benefit families who depend on one income earner. Think traditional working man, stay-at-home wife situation. If the married couple has a high-income earner and a low-income earner, the net taxes are lower than if they were not married. But if the couple has about the same income, and especially if each income is high, being married costs more taxes.
If you want to have more details, simple download the tax tables from the IRS.
Ha! Well, maybe there’s pastel chicken wire available, but nope, no marriage. 
The judge comes back with a ruling today.
Whichever way it goes, there will be loud protests. I hope things remains peaceful.
Whichever way it goes is relatively meaningless. The loser will appeal to the circuit court. The loser there will appeal to the Supreme Court, and I don’t see how they can dodge it.
If an appeal is filed does that mean that the ruling would not go into affect?
Up to the judge. If he overturns Prop 8, he could issue a stay (once an appeal is filed) preventing new marriages. He he upholds it, obviously no stay would be required.