Prop 8 trial update: Walker's ruling upheld

[jayjay]

@John_Mace

SSM wasn’t enacted by the legislature in CA-- it was deemed by the CA SC to be protected under the CA constitution. Prop 8 was a ballot initiative to amend the constitution.

Only because the big, bad Governator was too afraid of bucking his party to sign it. It passed, what? Three times? Lots of courage, there, Arnie…

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Asimovian

That’s kind of what I was getting at with my assumption above, but maybe** lawbuff **can clarify why a SCOTUS ruling would be limited.

Probably something based on the specific circumstances – California had been allowing gay marriages for a while, then the amendment took them away. That’s an unusual pattern.

[Cyberhwk]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

In other words, once same sex marriage rights are granted by a court or legislature, enactments taking that right away violate the federal constitution. It doesn’t matter whether the right is inherently protected by the federal constitution; once it is granted, it vests and cannot be taken away.

So this is good news for us in Washington as we will likely pass Same Sex Marriage in the next week or two while petitions to repeal are already being organized? Furthermore, we’re also under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit.

[kaylasdad99]

THAT is a very interesting question.

[alphaboi867]

@Cyberhwk

So this is good news for us in Washington as we will likely pass Same Sex Marriage in the next week or two while petitions to repeal are already being organized? Furthermore, we’re also under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit.

That depends. When the WA state legislature passes a law, but enough citizens sign a petition to get that law on the ballot does the law still go into effect or is it stayed until after the election? For example in Maine the legislature legalized same-sex marriage back in spring of 2009, but a measure to veto that law (somewhat confusingly a “No” vote was a vote in favour of SSM) made it to the November ballot. As a result the bill was stayed until the popular vote in Novemver. Since that veto was approved the law never went into effect and SSM was never actually legal in Maine.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The ruling addresses only the withdrawal of the right to same sex marriage. It does not address same sex marriage generally.

In other words, once same sex marriage rights are granted by a court or legislature, enactments taking that right away violate the federal constitution. It doesn’t matter whether the right is inherently protected by the federal constitution; once it is granted, it vests and cannot be taken away.

It’s not just that, though. It’s that, in addition, the court found that there wasn’t any substantial difference between gay marriage in California and the civil unions that replaced them. Since that was the case, changing the law to remove the name marriage wasn’t motivated by anything other than homophobia, and, per Roemer v Evans, it’s not Constitutional to have a law that serves no other purpose than to enshrine prejudice.