The ruling as I understand was based on the CA constitution. Its a state not Federal decision.

__________________
A song that says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqITJFGyq4s

It has to be turned into an issue that meets the criteria for which the SCOTUS has jurisdiction, not because it is a "state law" issue.

If you recall, Texas' sodomy laws were wiped off the books by the SCOTUS in a landmark decision. The rule also applied to all state sodomy laws, everywhere.


In this particular instance, I don't think even the "shaftiest" lawyer in the country could figure out how to get a writ of certiorari on this one.


Danger is not over though, there's yet another referendum on the CA ballot coming up to insert the ban back into the CA Constitution, so it could "overturn" the court decision.

__________________
WHYY pays their CEO $750,000 a year. So WHYY should I renew my membership? Seems they have no problems finding money and spending it unwisely.


And this is why you should donate to PACCA, not PETA:

In September, PETA made headlines in Vermont and across the nation for asking Ben & Jerry's ice cream to use human breast milk in their ice cream, instead of cow milk

What timing, no? The last time this really flared up was in 2004, and the anti-gay vote came out big. Now we'll have to see the sad spectacle of Obama and Clinton stating publicly that they are for civil unions, but against gay marriage, when we all know they are for gay marriage but can't say so.

I wonder if Clinton is gonna take a ride on the Defense-Of-Marriage Express to rally her "base?"

__________________
The Dream Police, they live inside of my head

I don't see how this would be under Federal oversight.
More likely you'll see a State Constitutional Ammendment and a recall for the 4 who conducted the judicial fiat that overturned the will of the People.

__________________
The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? - Psalm 27:1

Why exactly is it judicial fiat when a court rules that a same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, but a landmark civil rights ruling (not judicial fiat) when a court ruled in Loving v Virginia that mixed race marriage laws were unconstitutional?

__________________

Well, Valley Twin actually changed my opinion. I initially thought "why would the US Supreme Court get involved" but as pointed out, marriage status does affect federal gatering of monies and txes, so they could claim "commerce clause" of the US Constitution as a reason to delve into state issues.

__________________
Czar of the 26th Ward.

BWAHAHAHAHA my native state finally does something right!!

I'm seriously amazed at this.

almost makes me wanna move back home...

oh wait I hate L.A.

...

Meh, I can take redneck PA anyday.

Happy to know there's some progressive thinking at a statewide level.
CA officially goes from a blue state to a nice shade of purple

__________________
“Man who run in front of car get tired.”

There is no federal constitutional issue. No appeal to the Supreme Court.

I think it's a terrible decision, not because I object to the outcome (I don't) but because it is a naked case of judicial activism. Such policy is an issue for the legislature to determine, and in California, it has repeatedly reaffirmed that the state recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Justice Baxter's dissent, which I suggest reading, explains how the majority decision violates both the California Constitution's separation of powers but also the basic legal principles it claims to uphold.

I suspect the outcome will be a renewal of efforts to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in other states. (Californians voted by more than 61 percent to affirm such a definition in 2000, but the majority on the court sets that aside by defining legislative statues as constitutional amendments.) In at least a few states, these efforts will culminate in constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. As a result, when a simple majority chooses to extend recognition of same-sex marriage, it will not be able to without overcoming the burden of reamending the state constitution.

The long-term winner from this case is probably John McCain, who will find his base in California just got motivated to go to the polls to vote on a state constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. Even if he doesn't win the state, it's likely his opponent will have to spend more time and money there.

The long-term losers are likely to be the same-sex couples who think they won today. In November they are likely to see the passage of the California constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (Ironically, Obama's likelihood of motivating extra black voters to get to the polls may end up contributing to the passage of the amendment to ban gay marriage.)

Actually, I think the more relevant parallel is the Amendment 2 decision in Colorado, which involved a voter-approved amendment to that state's constitution forbidding any laws that forbade discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. There the Supremes found the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Illiniwek: I haven't read the opinion, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the California Supremes redefined a state statute as a constitutional amendment to reach their decision. If they had, they could not have reached the conclusion they did, for an amendment to a state constitution is by definition part of the document and thus cannot violate it. It's precisely because it was a statute and not an amendment that they could reach the decision they reached. The U.S. Supremes could reach the decision they did in the Colorado Amendment 2 case because the 14th Amendment forbids the states from enacting any laws (including sections of their constitutions) that would deny American citizens the equal protection of the laws.

__________________
Sandy Smith, Exile on Market Street, Philadelphia
"Jazz and blogging are both intimate, improvisational, and individual -- but also inherently collective. And the audience talks over both." --Andrew Sullivan, "Why I Blog," The Atlantic, November 2008

Again, I would ask how it's judicial activism for the court to issue a ruling on a ban on one type of marriage but not judicial activism (in fact, landmark civil rights ruling) to strike down a ban on another type of marriage (Loving v Virginia).

__________________