How the fuck does this decision make any goddamn sense at all?

[Sebastian Doyle]

So they allow Prop H8 to stand BUT say that all the previous marriages are valid?

So gay marriage is illegal, except for when it's not?

How the FUCK can that survive as a legal standard?

[bicentennial_baby]

1. Imho, they just violated the 14th amendment

[Deep13]

10. Equal protection of the laws?

I think you're right, but so far SCOTUS has declined to read discrimination based on orientation into the Fed. Constitution.

[dixiegrrrrl]

14. Ha ! but now it is NOT discrimination based on orientation

if SOME people can be legally married yesterday but SOME people cannot be legally married tomorrow.
Now it is a CLASS issue..the gender of the class is not important .
There is NOW discrimination between 2 identical groups, thus no equal protection, thus
violation of the 14th.

The court might have deliberately just passed the buck.

My take, anyhow.

[Deep13]

19. Well, there's a difference in timing.

Marriages under the old CA constitution are valid, but not ones made under the new constitution. I'm in no way defending this idiotic law, but I can see why the court did what it did.

[zipplewrath]

17. California is different

The difference here is that Cal wants to say that SOME gay marriages are legal. THAT is the equal protection violation. The justices in California were thinking of it as some sort of "grandfather" clause. But the SCOTUS may see it as UNequal protection of the laws. Even more confusing will be marriages from other states that existed prior to Prop 8. They ALSO may be required to be recognized on an equal protection basis (along with the "full faith and credit" provisions of Article IV.

Truth is Article IV is really problematic at this point.

Article IV
Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[Deep13]

18. I've always thought states had the duty to recognize all...

...marriages that are lawful in the state in which it was done.

[zipplewrath]

20. DoMA

The defense of Marriage Act (signed by Clinton) basically exempt a state from having to recognize marriages from other states that would not be legal within that state. It was slightly superfluous because it is already the fact that contracts that aren't legal in another state cannot be enforced there. It would seem California has developed a problem in that they have "legal" gay marriages within California and as such would seem forced to recognize legal marriages from other states.

[Deep13]

22. Yeah, I know SCOTUS rubber stamped it.

And I know Clinton was essentially bullied into signing it under the threat of an actual Federal Constitutional amendment, but it is still unconstitutional for statute law to overrule the full faith and credit law.

[zipplewrath]

11. Yup

In essence, they settled nothing, and opened a can-o-worms. Not only is this a dubious ruling under equal protection claims, but it also puts confusion in place with respect to marriages from other states. Unfortunately, if going to the current SCOTUS, the ruling would probably come back that ALL of them were nullified in California. I don't see SCOTUS saying that "once legal, always legal". On the other hand, the DoMA could actually REQUIRE California to recognize marriages from other states now. This decision stands about as much chance of enduring as "separate but equal".

[pup_ajax]

2. it's inane

I know ... it's so f**ked up.
But at least they kept those marriages legal.
That may be the key to undoing this in the future.

[Taverner]

3. It does not make any sense

Its an attempt to "comprimise"

But its a comprimise like "OK we'll execute John Doe, but we'll only go half way..."

[Deep13]

4. The amendment is not retroactive.

It is actually a well-established legal doctrine. Laws are typically prospective only.

[maxsolomon]

5. It survives as long as a court upholds it

i assume we're set up for a US Supreme Court decision at some point.

although they are also stacked with "lack-of-empathy" conservatives who "legislate from the bench".

[LeftHander]

16. it is consistent with DOMA....so no there won't be an appeal...

a new challenge will have to go through a federal law suit.

[LostinVA]

6. It doesn't

[MineralMan]

7. It makes no sense at all.

And it opens the potential for a federal case.

[bluedawg12]

8. Inconsistent and INJUSTICE!

Remember well this day. What goes around comes around.

Karma is a bitch. :grr:

[ohheckyeah]

9. I'm guessing it won't survive as a legal standard.

I certainly hope not.

[GodlessBiker]

12. Are same-sex marriages performed elsewhere and recognized as valid by CA ...

during the legal "window" last summer, are they also now valid?

We were married in Toronto. When we visited CA last summer and wanted to get married there, in the US, we were told by the county clerk that we could not get married in CA because we were already in a valid marriage as recognized by CA.

[no_hypocrisy]

13. Will it be appealed?

[Bluenorthwest]

15. California is what it is

and it sure isn't what it was once. Today means I'll never move home.

[ronnykmarshall]

21. It doesn't.

People are saying that this could be the legal loophole that might push this to the Big Supremes.