Has the CA Supreme Court already said they'd throw out Prop 8?

They are referring to prop. 22

Notice they say "statutory initiative". There are two types of initiatives, amendment initiatives and statutory initiatives. The decision in question was part of a lawsuit filed to strike down Proposition 22, Proposition 22 was a statutory initiative, therefore they made specific reference to statutory initiatives.

---

by: mcc @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 04:00:10 AM CST

also,

even if Scott was reading that passage correctly, there is no guarantee that the justices would line up in the same way when it came to ruling on what kind of amendment this was.  that is a different technical question.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:19:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Prop 8 vs Statutory Initiative

mcc is correct.  That's why the issue now is whether this ammendment is a revision or not.  A revision requires 2/3 majority in both houses of the legislature, then a popular vote.  Prop 8 was an initiative amendment, placed on the ballot by "the people" (if you can call them that).  The petitioners' argument before the CA Supreme Court now is that to eviscerate the equal protection clause of the CA constitution one needs to follow the revision process since this is a fundamental change.

---

by: grsplane @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:45:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Isn't the argument in most of the breifs filed that this required a constitutional

amendment process with a much higher % of people voting for it?  If the court throws it out, aren't the Prop H8er's going to come right back with another process?  

---

by: Scott_NC @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:40:08 AM CST

No.

If/when the Prop H8ers are defeated in Court, their only recourse would be to take the case to the Federal Courts - assuming this is possible. There is no way they would get such a measure through the Assembly and Senate when the two have already made attempts to legalise gay marriage in the relatively recent past - which would need to happen before any future vote if Prop H8 is struck down due to the unconstitutional nature of the ballot initiative.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:14:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

not quite.

the contention is that prop 8 amounted to a constitutional revision, not amendment.  if the court rules that it was an amendment, then it was passed by appropriate means.  if they rule that it was a revision, the proper means to pass it would have been approval by 2/3 of the legislature before a popular vote.  a revision is defined as something that alters the basic framework of the constitution, whereas an amendment is less drastic.  our side is saying that removing equal protections, a basic fundamental principle of the CA constitution, from a minority constitutes a revision, not just an amendment.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:17:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Paraphrase

IMO the quote Scott_NC highlighted means that the legal rights associated with marriage cannot be taken away; it does not preclude the possibility of those rights being provided through an alternative means such as civil unions.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:18:27 AM CST

Yes it does

The ruling determined that separate IS NOT equal. It refers specifically to the right to marry.

...the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage...

Not civil unions.  

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:23:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Weasel Words.

I was referring to the quote specifically, not the ruling as a whole. The ruling as a whole establishes that same-sex couples have a right to marriage, but not that specific quote.

It's confusing because it is a complicated sentence, and the subject of the main clause is marriage - however that is not the case for the entire sentence. The object of the main clause ("the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage") is the subect of the sub-clause which immediately follows. If the sub-clause referred to marriage, it would read "...that it may not be eliminated...", however the clause reads "...that they may not be eliminated..." - the plural is used, rather than the singular. "Marriage" is singular, "rights" are plural - so the final section of the sentence refers to marriage-related rights not marriage itself.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:54:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I recall you're in England...

As implemented in the US, civil unions are not the same as civil unions in England...they are a separate system of relationship recognition and may vary from state to state.  Several states have call the separate caste system of legal relationship recognition Domestic Partnerships, ie. Oregon and California...
California already has DPs which are not outlawed by Prop8.

Down the line if the State Supreme Court doesn't overturn Prop8 and if it can't be voted away, the legislature could pass a law so that all couples form civil unions with (and this is important for foreigners to realize, for California only)...and wipe  the "M" word from the law.  

At this point I would love to see any representative of a church or religion be barred from being an "officiate" of the state to sign "marriage" certificates.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:45:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Officiates in California

In California, it is  not necessary for an officiate to file credentials with the clerk of the court.

The county and state do not verify credentials. California does not maintain a registry of members of the clergy.

So, anyone over the age of 18 can sign your marriage certificate as long as the married couple doesn't object.

Nobody checks to see if a clergy member is ordained. There is absolutely no oversight. You could get married by Mickey Mouse.

It is like that in many states.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ah stupid me. Didn't know that...

Makes it even crazier this, "marriage is a religious" thing dynamic that is so pervasive.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:30:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It is crazy

In some counties, anyone over 18 can apply to become an "officiate for a day" and perform marriages. But, the process is strictly ceremonial. You get a "deputy marriage commissioner" certificate that is meaningless. It isn't an official court document. It is like those fake birth certificates that hospitals give to babies. There's no official record.

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow...

That's really interesting.  Didn't know that as well.

"To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best day and night to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight and never stop fighting." -E.E. Cummings

---

by: popsiclestand @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 18:51:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Being an Internet-ordained minister in CA...

...I can confirm that this is true.  It completely shocked me when I discovered it upon doing my homework after being asked to marry two friends.

You have to jump through more hoops just to get a fishing license!

---

by: diablorobotico @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 17:07:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

UK CPs

As implemented in the US, civil unions are not the same as civil unions in England

Not if you look at European marriage & civil union laws which, just as in the US, vary widely from state to state - and are never 100% equal. For example, CZ civil unions don't provide adoption rights; UK CPs cannot be performed in churches or other places of worship and aren't subject to adultery law; NL gay marriages and civil unions require one partner to be an NL resident; and so on. Some states have both gay marriage and civil unions, as will be the case in CA if/when Prop 8 is struck down. If/when the UK legalises gay marriage the UK's civil unions won't automatically be upgraded - unless the Act specifically does so by rescinding the Civil Partnership Act; consequently it is possible to craft laws that exclude CPs and include marriages or vice-versa. For example, the Home Office's new immigration rules change, which will see the age threshold for partner's visas raised to 21, may have an exclusion for CPs because they're not relevant to the reason for the change (preventing arranged marriages); certainly my MP seems to think such a thing is possible - and he was one of the people behind the CP Act. As in the US, EU states are required to recognise the straight marriages of other EU states - but not gay marriages or equivalents; consequently the UK does not recognise SI civil unions, and FR applies only portions of their PACs law to UK civil partnerships.

The only significant difference between the European and American equivalents is that in Europe the marriage-related rights dealt with federally in the US are dealt with by individual states, not Brussels - so in providing alternatives to marriage EU states are able to offer a more comprehensive set of rights than their US equivalents, including things like immigration.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 14:23:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great info thanks....

the devil is in the detail however....from your write up;
"Some states have both gay marriage and civil unions, as will be the case in CA if/when Prop 8 is struck down."

THIS IS NOT CORRECT....California has DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS NOT CIVIL UNIONS...quibble, but to register with the state for a DP you get notarized....you don't even have to get close to a state office...then you send the piece of paper in. A bank, a realtor, a private notary, will do.  Don't call them CIVIL UNIONS because they are not....ok, sure, all the civil marriage rights, but I'm nit picking on purpose because this is just one example of how confusing it is out there.  

So far, only Connecticutt has BOTH marriage and civil unions.  That's it.  I read rumors about the legislature halting CVs now that there's marriage equality.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 16:41:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mailboxes, Etc.

A bank, a realtor, a private notary, will do.

We joke about "our" Mailboxes Etc.

---

by: Darkrose @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 17:00:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

did you have the reception in the foyer?

:D

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 21:22:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LOL

Mailboxes, Etc.! That's where we got notarized a couple of years ago. It was actually the third place we tried after a proper notary, and a copy center, both of which had closed for the day. Yeah, we're procrastinators.

Gosh, the memories...

---

by: cymatic @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:18:18 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Splitting Hairs

I generally use "civil union" as a catch-all for all the various marriage equivalents, such as Pact Civile de Solidarite, Civil Partnership, Domestic Partnership, Registered Partnership, Unregistered Partnership, Statutory Cohabitation, Unregistered Cohabitation, Civil Union...

Or perhaps you'd like me to list them all each time? ;-)

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 17:14:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you're being facetious....

yes I would.
We're talking LEGAL relationship recognition here and generally, in the US the distinction needs to be made because each state will have a different arrangement.  
Marriage equivalent =/= dp =/= unregistered partnership =/=
statutory cohabitation =/= civil union.

Splitting hairs, I haven't educated myself about Pact Civile de Solidarite nor Civil Partnerships of France and England I believe.  

The California Supreme Court will only be considering Prop 8 and the repeal of marriage for all...It will not consider any marriage equivalents because that is not what the court filings are about.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 17:36:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A Q for you Karen.

Can straight couples get DPs in CA?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 21:23:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yes

Opposite sex couple can register as DPs, but only if "one or both of the persons are over the age of 62" and they meet some criteria for Social Security old-age insurance benefits.

See here and here

---

by: cymatic @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:23:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks!

that's the system WA uses too.  i asked because i was curious why no ally straight couple who aren't over 62 sued for being denied a CA DP.  of course it makes no sense for anyone younger to want the inferior thing, but a lawsuit would make the point that it is indeed so inferior that CA won't let straight couples fall so low as to get one.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 11:11:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree with your main point

It's important to emphasize that it's not simply a matter of "you can have civil unions, just don't call it marriage," as if there's some concrete and universally recognized exact equivalent of marriage that we should just relent and accept. When addressing a potentially naive audience I try to write something like "civil unions, domestic partnerships, and the disparate range of other similar but inferior arrangements" to emphasize the inequality. Also, it's sensible to use the correct term when referring to a specific case (e.g., California has domestic partnerships, not civil unions).

However, in a case like this where we've established that there's this confusing panoply of not-quite-marriage arrangements I'm not sure I see the value of belaboring the point by naming every permutation every time. We know what we're talking about, let's not handicap the conversation by needlessly fussing over a straightforward and practical shorthand for an unwieldy laundry list.

---

by: cymatic @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

True, true,

...and it is in part because of such confusion that I fully believe in fighting for marriage equality.  However, it is also important to remember that California domestic partnerships deliver real, substantive rights and responsibilities, and no couple enters (or at least, no one should enter) into them lightly.  Although the notarization and the sending in of the paper are mundane mechanics, they are not the most important element--i.e., the commitment of the couple to one another, their agreement to be responsible for each other's welfare, for each other's debts.  It is not a trivial or purely decorative matter.  California's community property laws/protections, for example, apply no less to domestic partners than to married couples.  Yes, the simplification and equality of full marriage rights is important (indeed, I myself married this past summer), but let's not forget that many Californians worked very hard for a system of rights that continues to provide couples essential protections.  And for those couples who make that commitment to each other between now and the time we restore full equality in California, the Registered Domestic Partnership remains an important and available structure for protecting their relationships legally.

---

by: Gianpiero @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:07:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

another significant difference

is that marriages, civil unions, etc. between same-sex partners in the USA get NO federal recognition.  that is a huge problem because a lot of the legal benefits of marriage are covered at the federal level, not the state level.  as far as i know, this is not a problem faced by european people who have a national-level CP, marriage, etc. because marriage law is at the national scale in those countries.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 21:21:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As I noted in the last pragraph:

The only significant difference between the European and American equivalents is that in Europe the marriage-related rights dealt with federally in the US are dealt with by individual states, not Brussels - so in providing alternatives to marriage EU states are able to offer a more comprehensive set of rights than their US equivalents, including things like immigration.

The only EU law I know of regarding marriage is the one which requires EU states to recognise the marriages of other EU states - and, as in the US, that law doesn't cover gay marriages or equivalents; there are currently moves afoot to change this so that EU states which have same-sex unions recognise the same-sex unions of other EU states.

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:48:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Schwarzenegger on This Week

He said that he felt Prop. 8 would be struck down for the exact same reasons as Prop. 22.

I'm sure he's been in talks with Jerry Brown about this. This isn't something that those serving the California courts have been avoiding discussing this entire time.

The Supreme Court justices have probably been working on their possible decision for months. Do you think that they haven't been speaking to the Attorney General behind closed doors? These people work together every day.

I doubt that there will be a surprises. Say what you want about Arnold. He's not stupid and he's certainly not going to come out on the wrong side of history. He already knows what is going to happen.  

When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will.

- Abraham Lincoln.

---

by: Fritz @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:31:30 AM CST

Yeah

Say what you want about Arnold. He's not stupid and he's certainly not going to come out on the wrong side of history.

Arnold surprised me. I didn't vote for him - still wouldn't vote for him - but he displays a much better knowledge of our system of government than most native-born citizens. That's one of the reasons I've never faulted him for vetoing the legislature-passed equal marriage bills. He was right, it would have conflicted with Prop 22 and it would have made a legal mess. When the SCoC ruling came down in May, I heard his speech about it and he displayed a nuanced understanding I frankly thought was beyond The Governator.

Not so dumb. I still think he's an opportunistic whore who doesn't have a single firm conviction beyond his own self-aggrandizement and that he probably has an unnatural relationship with his wallet because he loves his money so much, but he's not dumb.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:42:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A bit of bigotry folk...he has an accent.

Therefore, he is a dumb 'furaner'.  Quite the contrary, though he is so new to the politicical game that he is almost 'too flexible' in some ways.  And we all know Jerry is doing everything he can to get this to 'come out right.'  Just keep your 'naked ring fngers crossed'... as JH says.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:06:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

logic dictates it's a revision

Since the CA Supreme Court has already ruled that the California state Constitution does in fact affirm the legal right of same-sex couples to marry, the act of taking away such a right can only be a revision.

---

by: GTJeff76 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:32:08 PM CST

vs. amendments

If my understanding is correct, a simple majority amendment can really only address a previously unanswered constitutional legal question.

---

by: GTJeff76 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 13:39:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Amendment Threatens all marriages?

I have also read, although I don't know how strong a legal argument this is, that if the amendment is allowed to stand it creates a dichotomy in the Constitution that might only be answered by ending all marriages in California. Because the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a civil right that must be applied evenly across the population, and this amendment makes the state apply that right unevenly, the only legal solution could be to rule everyone in CA has a DP from this point forward. I bet that would get a repeal movement begun pretty damn quickly.  

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 15:16:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I can't locate the source,

  I read that somewhere that if prop 8 passes, it could end all marriages or would have to claim that marriage is not a civil right because of the Equality for All issue.

 But as it stands, and the right is arguing, everyone has the right to marry, you just have to choose to be straight.  This is why the hold so dear that being gay is a choice.

 It is a tangled mess.  But then when marriage is granted between two people, than it becomes the couples' rights which frants all the benefits of marriage to the couple.  And there lies the problem.  

 Using the choice BS, you are not free to be an idividual as in order to gain benefits of being married, you are forced to make a choice against your own beliefs and liberty.

 If prop 8 stands, look for more lay-offs at Focus on the Anus, as they will have to pony up more money to fight the rest of the court battles as Marriage is removed from being a Civil Right, and therefore all benefits from marriage will have to disappear from Government.

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

---

by: HappyCat @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 18:03:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Do they read their own arguments?

 But as it stands, and the right is arguing, everyone has the right to marry, you just have to choose to be straight.

They never seem to look at where that argument leads -- it means that instead of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, they're discriminating on the basis of gender, which is legally even more suspect.

---

by: M @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 00:04:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Gender discrimination

You can't have a law that applies only to one gender, but not the other. Under current laws, it is legal for a man to marry a woman, but it is illegal for a woman to marry a woman. Men and women are treated unequally by the law.

Has this argument been raised in any of the court cases in the US?

---

by: Stephanie @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 02:39:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Colorado and California

Do LGBT constitutional lawyers equate this with the passage of Colorado Constitutional Amendment 2 in the early 1990's?

It was passed by about the same ratio as Prop 8 54% to 47% and was initiated by FOF, pretending to be "concerned citizens in Colorado Springs".

It was struck down by the US Supremes because it forbade "all legislative, executive, or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the status of persons based on their 'homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships' by violating Equal Protection Clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 16:21:25 PM CST

One of the 'potential' briefs mentioned it.

But due to the present configuration of SCOTUS... we are being VERY CAREFUL in California NOT to invoke any Federal statute.

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:00:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, and here's why

in vastly oversimplified terms: Romer resolved the question, Does the 14th Amendment allow a state to make a class of persons, defined as such by the state, alien to the law?

That is, Can a state determine that one group can't use any branch of government to address that group's treatment by the state?

Answer, No. States can't fence a group out of legislative, executive AND judicial redress, because that leaves the members of that group less protected by the law than their neighbors.

There may indeed, under a more insightful and progressive interpretation than that offered by federal judges in this country at this time, be a reading of equla protection that includes gay people. But what NCLR's litigators did in presenting their case to the CA Supreme Court was way smarter than that.

They asked for, and got, a finding that sexual orientation is a suspect classification under CA's Constitution. That is, any law that distinguishes between people with homosexual orientation and those with het orientation has to have a rational basis.

Perez v Sharp (1948) found that the right to marry the partner of one's choice was protected by the CA Constitution, in the case that overturned CA's miscegenation law. As a result of that precedent, combined with the finding that the particular form of discrimination involved in marriage law was discriminating against gay folks, what the Court did at the urging of our smartest lawyers was to expand the application of Perez to include same-sex couples.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:30:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess one good thing coming out of Prop 8's passage...

...is that "everyday Joe's" are becoming very well-versed in the law -- which can't be a bad thing.  Thanks for putting up such good and interesting legal arguments against Prop 8 you guys.

I feel that this will be struck down.  Which is funny when looking at all the money poured in from the "winning" side.  Sad, because of all the money poured in by LGBT people to counteract this amendment.  And is really heart-breaking (IMHO) for the manipulation of those average people so shackled to their religion that they gave tens of thousands just because their church told them to do so.

"To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best day and night to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight and never stop fighting." -E.E. Cummings

---

by: popsiclestand @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 19:14:22 PM CST

question of domestic partner laws and civil unions

Can anyone answer the following questions?

Say I am bisexual. I am male. I enter into a civil union with another male in NJ. Now we both move to CA and we break up. Can I now enter into a domestic partnership with another male? Can I now get married to a woman?

If not, how would I dissolve the civil union so I could now get a domestic partnership or a marriage?

And if so, this is a great example to show why we need marriage/civil unions/domestic partnerships to be Federal. This idea that States Regulate this is crap. We so often and so easily move across state lines, it's ridiculous that our legal relationships can change just by walking across an arbitrary line. Heck I live in MA. I can drive through 8 other states in the same day.

To expand on this a bit, if I am married in MA and then move to a state that doesn't recognize the marriage, does that mean I'm divorced? Can I now marry someone else? And if I'm not divorced, doesn't that mean that technically the other state IS recognizing it?

Okay, my head is starting to swim with all the legalities involved. I wonder why no one is working on these issues? Or at least it doesn't seem like anyone is.

---

by: acoolerclimate @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 20:18:27 PM CST

did you do any research on this issue?

...a lot of ink has already been spilled on this.  GLAD already brought a case of a R.I. couple trying to get divorced in Massachusetts.  Lambda Legal has a document that's all about that (http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/factsheets/fs_legal-recognition-same-sex-couples.html).

We've made this patchwork work in the past -- though obviously it will have devastating and complicating effects for many couples.  But we've waited 25 years for a federal non-discrimination act and still don't have one -- what makes you think the wait for a federal civil unions law will be any shorter?

The fact is, state-by-state is how we got rid of sodomy laws, and state-by-state is how we'll win equality.

---

by: mgh @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 21:07:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

recognition

California should recognize a civil union from New Jersey as a California domestic partnership, whereby you could terminate it in a dissolution.

If you enter a domestic relationship (marriage/union/ect) in one state, you can't terminate it merely by crossing state boundaries.

---

by: Gavino01 @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 21:32:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We had a judge here in Iowa caught up in that...

...when he issued a divorce decree for two women without realizing it. He caught a lot of hell for it, as did the Iowa Supreme Court when it upheld the decision.

http://www.qctimes.com/article...

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:04:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's even more complicated than that.

Many jurisdictions only recognise some foreign or out-of-state same-sex unions. Spain only recognises foreign gay marriages, while many US states with civil unions only recognise the CUs of other US states - not those of foreign countries, and Oregon DP law is worded so that the state only recognises its own DPs and other states can't recognise OR DPs (though several EU states ignore this and recognise OR DPs as their local equivalents). This means it is possible to have up to six such unions in various places:

Say you have a man in a Civil Union in Slovenia. He moves to the UK, which doesn't recognise SI CUs, and enters a Civil Partnership. He then moves to New Jersey which (to my knowledge) doesn't recognise SI CUs or UK CPs, and enters a second Civil Union. He then moves to Oregon which doesn't recognise SI CUs, UK CPs or NJ CUs, and enters a Domestic Partnership. Then he moves to Spain, which doesn't recognise SI CUs, UK CPs, NJ CUs or OR DPs, and enters a gay marriage. Finally he moves to Poland which doesn't recognise SI CUs, UK CPs, NJ CUs, OR DPs or ES gay marriages, and enters a straight marriage.

You see the problem...

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 04:24:09 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I pray the judges trust their own decision, then we win

EVEN if Prop 8 is overturned, UTAH (the H8-STATE) still gets a BOYCOTT...just for P*SSING ME OFF!

What have you done today, to make ya feel PROUD?


~Heather Small

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 23:25:48 PM CST

I hope they also realize Prop 8 is an attack on their perogatives...

...and they swat it down accordingly. Otherwise, all minorities are on sufferance, and the judges will have their hands tied. Marbury v. Madison will be dead letter.

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:09:39 AM CST