The Paragraph
May. 27th, 2009 12:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furrbearFolks need to read this paragraph from the introduction to the ruling:
Yeah it sucked they didn't toss it out, but they tightly constrained the issue and reaffirmed the rights granted in the marriage decision. They pretty much chose my third option but omitted instructing the other branches of government to use a new word applicable to all couples.
The pro-Prop-H8 forces won the use of a label. The court unanimously reaffirmed the rights granted in the Marriage Cases decision (it was a 4-3 split then), though same-sex couples may not avail themselves of the term 'marriage' (Insulting as that denial may be.) It would be perfectly fine if the legislature changed the word 'marriage' to some other term that would then apply to all couples. (DING! Yeah... civil unions for all.)
I wrote last week: "The fundies will have succeeded in keeping gays from getting 'married', but will, in so doing, lose the right to have their unions recognized by the state as 'marriages'. The state Supreme Court will take the state out of the 'marriage' business." And there's is nothing I've yet seen in this decision preventing that from happening.
In addressing the issues now presented in the third chapter of this narrative, it is important at the outset to emphasize a number of significant points. First, as explained in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at page 780, our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.That's the issue here. This ruling is a matter of law and there was very little chance that Prop 8 would be overturned. See my earlier post on why this decision just may not be as bad as everyone initially reacted.
Yeah it sucked they didn't toss it out, but they tightly constrained the issue and reaffirmed the rights granted in the marriage decision. They pretty much chose my third option but omitted instructing the other branches of government to use a new word applicable to all couples.
The pro-Prop-H8 forces won the use of a label. The court unanimously reaffirmed the rights granted in the Marriage Cases decision (it was a 4-3 split then), though same-sex couples may not avail themselves of the term 'marriage' (Insulting as that denial may be.) It would be perfectly fine if the legislature changed the word 'marriage' to some other term that would then apply to all couples. (DING! Yeah... civil unions for all.)
I wrote last week: "The fundies will have succeeded in keeping gays from getting 'married', but will, in so doing, lose the right to have their unions recognized by the state as 'marriages'. The state Supreme Court will take the state out of the 'marriage' business." And there's is nothing I've yet seen in this decision preventing that from happening.
