California Same Sex Marriage Ban ruled as Unconstitutional

I'm so glad, this will be a major step forward toward eliminating prejudices being built into the constitution. The constitution itself forbids prejudice, and as far as I know, there is no asterisk next to it that says "Unless you feel like it". Prejudice, in any form, which allows a set of rules for one group of people, and another set of rules for another set of people, is unconstitutional, period. I'm glad the California Supreme Court had the better judgment to see that.

w000t

so does this mean they are going to recognise gay marriage in cali?

YAY!

All we need now is for Kevin Rudd to follow suit.

That's excellent news.

awesome
go gay people

I was so happy it nearly brought tears to my eyes. I've been so disappointed lately with states amending their constitutions to include prejudice, that this piece of news was a real relief to me. I think it's especially significant because it's California, and many states look to California for precedent.

I was a little confused though, because even though they ruled on it this morning, the news stations were saying "This could lead to legal same-sex marriage in California". If the ban was just ruled as unconstitutional, doesn't that mean it IS legal now? I'm probably missing some legal information on that. But at any rate, it's step in the right direction, and a big step at that.

I never could understand why in a place where every law abiding citizen is supposed to have the same rights as another they would not have gay marraige, even if its civil service. Its great news

The Constitutional Amendment made it impossible for the state to pass a law making same-sex marriage legal.

Now the state has to actually make same-sex marriage legal.

Kinda like the First Amendment prevents the government from infringing on our freedom of speech. If they wanted to pass a law that infringed on freedom of speech, they'd FIRST have to repeal that part of the Constitution.

Yippie.

dont worry, i dont think a bunch of guys are gonna be proposing to you now, just because they can!

I don't live in California this week. lol

Ah, ok, got it, thanks


What I think is that the legal and religious aspects of marriage should be separated completely. For instance, anyone can form a legal union, and if they want to "marry" in the religious/spiritual/social service of their choice, that's up to them. Then everyone would have the same partner benefits, and the prejudices could be left up to the churches, as to whether they think it's "right" or "wrong" or whatever. Because really, this whole issue comes down to people thinking that gay marriage is "wrong" even though it's between consenting adults, which is a moral/religious judgment, not a legal one. The law only needs to step in if people are being placed in danger or harms way, not if certain churches disapprove.

Is the UK government allowed to make homosexual marriage legal, considering its connection to the Anglican Church? Then again, the archbishop himself is pro-gay rights.

So from what I can tell, the ruling did actually make same sex marriage legal. There's just a 30 day waiting period for the ruling to become "official", and then the marriage licenses will start to be issued. Yay!

But now the guy who initiated the original ban which has been over-ruled, is asking for them to wait longer than the 30 days because he's planning on putting an initiative on the ballot that proposes a constitutional amendment that defines a marriage as strictly one man and one woman. *sigh* Unfortunately, the original ban was voted into effect in a similar manner with 60% of the vote. So I'm worried a constitutional amendment would pass just like the ban did. He apparently has gathered enough signatures to get it on the ballot this November. I hate people who try to build prejudice into the constitution! It's so wrong! It's the constitution for Christ sake! You don't just mess with the constitution willy-nilly. It's there to be the backbone of strength, and a point of references under uncertain circumstances. It's not supposed to be amended during those circumstances. That defeats the whole point. Hey, let's just write the rules as we go along then, no need for discipline or principle. Geez.