US Supreme Court to take up same-sex marriage issue

[SalisburySage]

I can't see how the Court would rule narrowly on DOMA. DOMA violates constitutional protections that forbid the Government from discriminating by
creating disfavored, second-class citizens—and disfavored, second-class marriages. Such unconstitutional election-year bills appeal to anti-gay disapproval, dislike, or discomfortCthe very animus rejected by the Supreme Court as a basis for government discrimination.

DOMA gives congress the power to punish disfavored marriages by denying them federal protections and benefits such

[Baltimatt]

Sage--

I was thinking more of Proposition 8, where the Court could issue a broad or narrow ruling.

[Cameron]

Sage--

I was thinking more of Proposition 8, where the Court could issue a broad or narrow ruling.

I don't get the narrow ruling and it's what I alluded to when I framed the question, "Can the states make same sex marriage illegal?"

The narrow ruling here is that the CA Supreme Court gave gay Californians the right to marry so the state could not take it away, even by amending their Constitution.

This reasoning flies in the face of agitation for an amendment to overturn Roe.

Isn't amending the Constitution the way we overturn Supreme Court decisions?

I'm saying that gays are born with the right to get married.

Therefore, it requires state action to take the right away.

[Baltimatt]

Cameron--

The narrow ruling would be that California's Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took away a right from a specific population. A broad ruling would be that all limits on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

While the California Supreme Court found an implicit right to SSM in the California constitution, the people voted, by amending the constitution, to explicitly take that right away. So yes, the people of California voted to overturn a state Supreme Court decision by amending the state constitution.

A narrow ruling would address this specific issue only. A broader ruling would stipulate that all such statutes and constitutional amendments are in violation of federal constitutional guarantees.

[Cameron]

Cameron--

The narrow ruling would be that California's Proposition 8 was unconstitutional because it took away a right from a specific population.

I'm not getting how if a specific population has a right in CA, it wouldn't have the right countrywide.

A broad ruling would be that all limits on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.

Too broad.

There are always going to be health, safety and public policy restrictions.

Just because they're gay, we still aren't going to let 12 year olds get married.

While the California Supreme Court found an implicit right to SSM in the California constitution,

That's not what this says:

The justices said Friday they will review a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's gay marriage ban, though on narrow grounds. The San Francisco-based appeals court said the state could not take away the same-sex marriage right that had been granted by California's Supreme Court. . .

In striking down Proposition 8, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals crafted a narrow ruling that said because gay Californians already had been given the right to marry, the state could not later take it away. The ruling studiously avoided any sweeping pronouncements.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2218441.html

the people voted, by amending the constitution, to explicitly take that right away. So yes, the people of California voted to overturn a state Supreme Court decision by amending the state constitution.

A narrow ruling would address this specific issue only. A broader ruling would stipulate that all such statutes and constitutional amendments are in violation of federal constitutional guarantees.

If you're saying that it's implicit in the CA Constitution on an equal protection basis, how would the US Constitution differ?

Is/was gender a protected class in the CA Constitution?

I'm not finding it.

[Baltimatt]

I'm not getting how if a specific population has a right in CA, it wouldn't have the right countrywide.

Because rights granted under state constitutions may exceed those under the federal constitution.

Too broad.

There are always going to be health, safety and public policy restrictions.

Just because they're gay, we still aren't going to let 12 year olds get married.

I meant restrictions on same-sex marriages in and of themselves. Other laws applying to all marriages remain applicable.

That's not what this says:

I don't get what you are saying here. The right was granted under the California constitution but taken away by constitutional amendment.

If you're saying that it's implicit in the CA Constitution on an equal protection basis, how would the US Constitution differ?

Is/was gender a protected class in the CA Constitution?

I'm not finding it.

State constitutions can differ from the US constitution. Only if rights granted by the US constitution are restricted at the state level will the US constitution take precedence. That's why Alabama's constitutional mandate for racially segregated schools is no longer applicable.

Here's the California Supreme Court ruling in re marriage cases. You might find it here.

[Cameron]

Because rights granted under state constitutions may exceed those under the federal constitution.

I meant restrictions on same-sex marriages in and of themselves. Other laws applying to all marriages remain applicable.

I don't get what you are saying here. The right was granted under the California constitution but taken away by constitutional amendment.

Do you have a link for the right being granted by the California Constitution?

That's what I'm not finding:

http://law.onecle.com/california/con...ticle_1/7.html

State constitutions can differ from the US constitution. Only if rights granted by the US constitution are restricted at the state level will the US constitution take precedence. That's why Alabama's constitutional mandate for racially segregated schools is no longer applicable.

Here's the California Supreme Court ruling in re marriage cases. You might find it here.

The links that I read say that the right was granted by CA's Supreme Court.

[Baltimatt]

Cameron--

That's why I said "implicit." It is not expressly granted in the California constitution, but the California Supreme Court found a right based on its reading of the constitution.

[Cameron]

I don't get the narrow ruling and it's what I alluded to when I framed the question, "Can the states make same sex marriage illegal?"

The narrow ruling here is that the CA Supreme Court gave gay Californians the right to marry so the state could not take it away, even by amending their Constitution.

This reasoning flies in the face of agitation for an amendment to overturn Roe.

Isn't amending the Constitution the way we overturn Supreme Court decisions?

I'm saying that gays are born with the right to get married.

Therefore, it requires state action to take the right away.

Cameron--

That's why I said "implicit." It is not expressly granted in the California constitution, but the California Supreme Court found a right based on its reading of the constitution.

Then aren't we back to the point about amending Constitutions to overturn Supreme Court rulings?

The US Supreme Court found the right in Roe based on its reading of the US Constitution.

[Justthefax]

We know the Supreme Court has made many bad decisions over the years.

[Baltimatt]

In light of this recognition, sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty (including the right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family) that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals. The privacy and due process provisions of our state Constitution — in declaring that “[a]ll people . . . have [the] inalienable right[] [of] privacy” (art. I, § 1) and that no person may be deprived of “liberty” without due process of law (art. I, § 7) — do not purport to reserve to persons of a particular sexual orientation the substantive protection afforded by those provisions. In light of the evolution of our state’s understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights. (Cf. Valerie N., supra, 40 Cal.3d 143, 154, 160-165 [holding that the state constitutional right of personal autonomy in matters of reproductive choice must be interpreted to afford incompetent developmentally disabled women the benefits accorded by that constitutional right].)

From the above link to the California Supreme Court dicision.

[Baltimatt]

Then aren't we back to the point about amending Constitutions to overturn Supreme Court rulings?

The US Supreme Court found the right in Roe based on its reading of the US Constitution.

The people of California amended the state constitution to overturn the state Supreme Court ruling in regard to same-sex marriage. That is not as arduous a process as amending the US constitution.

Am I missing something in your argument?

[Cameron]

The people of California amended the state constitution to overturn the state Supreme Court ruling in regard to same-sex marriage. That is not as arduous a process as amending the US constitution.

The people of CA amended the state Constitution, according to its process, to overturn the state Supreme Court ruling in regard to same sex marriage.

The people of the US amended the US Constitution, according to its process, to overturn the US Supreme Court ruling in regard to abortion.

Am I missing something in your argument?

You are not telling me why the people of CA cannot do what it is presumed the rest of the country can do.

Amend their own Constitution, according to its process.

[Baltimatt]

Cameron--

I am not aware of any U.S. constitutional amendment regarding abortion, let alone overturning Roe v. Wade, that has been ratified. Which one is it?

[Cameron]

Cameron--

I am not aware of any U.S. constitutional amendment regarding abortion, let alone overturning Roe v. Wade, that has been ratified. Which one is it?

It's a hypothetical.

The people of CA amended the state Constitution, according to its process, to overturn the state Supreme Court ruling in regard to same sex marriage.

The people of the US amended the US Constitution, according to its process, to overturn the US Supreme Court ruling in regard to abortion.

I'm asking how a court could overturn one but not the other?

Keep in mind, we're on the "narrow issue" thingy here and I come down hard on your side on the broad issue.

[Baltimatt]

Cameron--

OK, I was thinking you may have been hypothetical, but inititially I was confused by your line of thinking.

Of course, it's a moot point as we have no amendment banning abortion in effect now.

While the California supreme court accepted the will of this people in overturning same-sex marriage, the Ninth Circuit Court found that taking away a right from a select population that has often faced societal disapproval was a violation of federal constitutional protections. That is what the Supreme Court is being asked to decide. It may agree with the 9th Circuit, reject the 9th Circuit's finding, or broaden the scope to question all restrictions on same-sex marriage beyond other laws applicable to the population as a whole.

However, rights can be restricted. Depending on the level of scrutiny determined by the courts, there could be a rational reason or a compelling reason. The 9th found no justifiable reason why California could restrict the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

As far as whether the US could overturn Roe v. Wade via constitutional amendment, that would be its own case with its own arguments. The decision of the Supreme Court on Proposition 8 could very well influence any possible future litigation on this issue.

[Cameron]

Cameron--

OK, I was thinking you may have been hypothetical, but inititially I was confused by your line of thinking.

Of course, it's a moot point as we have no amendment banning abortion in effect now.

While the California supreme court accepted the will of this people in overturning same-sex marriage, the Ninth Circuit Court found that taking away a right from a select population that has often faced societal disapproval was a violation of federal constitutional protections. That is what the Supreme Court is being asked to decide. It may agree with the 9th Circuit, reject the 9th Circuit's finding, or broaden the scope to question all restrictions on same-sex marriage beyond other laws applicable to the population as a whole.

That is what the Supreme Court is being asked to decide. It may agree with the 9th Circuit, reject the 9th Circuit's finding, or broaden the scope to question all restrictions on same-sex marriage beyond other laws applicable to the population as a whole.

The 9th found no justifiable reason why California could restrict the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

As far as whether the US could overturn Roe v. Wade via constitutional amendment, that would be its own case with its own arguments. The decision of the Supreme Court on Proposition 8 could very well influence any possible future litigation on this issue.

While it's you who brought up the "narrow" v. "broad" distinction and I was under the impression that we were discussing, solely, the "narrow" issue, you have now jumbled them all together.

So we've kinda wasted a page or two here.

Have a good evening, Matt.

[Baltimatt]

You too, Cameron.

We don't know how the Supreme Court will rule, so anything is possible. I just wanted to point out that a win for Proposition 8 opponents may not bring same-sex marriage to all fifty states. As I recall, the original decision by Judge Walker was broader than that delivered by the 9th Circuit. But still, taking away a right may not apply in states where it has never been a right. We'll have to see.

[Cameron]

You too, Cameron.

We don't know how the Supreme Court will rule, so anything is possible. I just wanted to point out that a win for Proposition 8 opponents may not bring same-sex marriage to all fifty states.

Yes, you keep pointing it out, but you have yet to articulate a basis for the point --- except to say that a CA court can overturn a CA constitutional amendment.

That sounds preposterous.

But you haven't said any other reason why it would be limited to CA.

As I recall, the original decision by Judge Walker was broader than that delivered by the 9th Circuit. But still, taking away a right may not apply in states where it has never been a right. We'll have to see.

If the right did not exist, why would the states need to pass laws to make it illegal?

[veritas]

Yes, you keep pointing it out, but you have yet to articulate a basis for the point --- except to say that a CA court can overturn a CA constitutional amendment.

That sounds preposterous.

But you haven't said any other reason why it would be limited to CA.


If the right did not exist, why would the states need to pass laws to make it illegal?

Nothing that is illegal is a right. That seems pretty obvious. If it's a right, how can it be made illegal? One is a direct assault on the other. While states don't have to pass anti-gay marriage laws, their legislators are free to do so, just as they are free to enact gay marriage if they see fit.