And the opinions as to what will happen to the 17,000+ married after the change in law . . . Some legal scholars have said either the existing marriages will remain valid, others were arguing that they will be annulled, as happened when the State Supreme Court overturned the SF marriages.
A suit to dismiss the initiative from the ballot brought by gay rights groups in June was dismissed. They tried to argue that the changes under prop 8 would constitute a revision to the CA constitution (which requires a 2/3 vote of legislature, before going to voters) rather than a simple amendment, which did not require the legislature’s participation. They also argued that the petitions to put the proposition on the ballot (which circulated prior to the May Supreme Court legalization of same-sex marriage) were now misleading, because they had stated that the proposition would not change marriage laws (untrue after May) and would have no fiscal impact.
State Attorney Jerry Brown has stated that "marriages that have been entered into subsequent to the [May 15] Supreme Court opinion will be recognized by the California Supreme Court. . . . I would think the court, in looking at the underlying equities, would most probably conclude that upholding the marriages performed in that interval [before the election] would be a just result."
Some constitutional scholars are agreeing that the amendment cannot be applied retroactively so the marriages will stand. This was the motive behind a number of my friends making sure they got legally married prior to the election.
The state constitution will define marriage as only between one man and one woman. California does have a domestic partnership act, but separate but equal (HAH!) is NOT equal. Under domestic partnership, couples do NOT get right of inheritance, nor do they have protection with regard to health care decisions. For example, they could be denied the right to ride in an ambulance with their partner, or make health care decisions for them if they did not have separate power of attorney for health care.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-11-05 03:39 pm (UTC)And the opinions as to what will happen to the 17,000+ married after the change in law . . . Some legal scholars have said either the existing marriages will remain valid, others were arguing that they will be annulled, as happened when the State Supreme Court overturned the SF marriages.
A suit to dismiss the initiative from the ballot brought by gay rights groups in June was dismissed. They tried to argue that the changes under prop 8 would constitute a revision to the CA constitution (which requires a 2/3 vote of legislature, before going to voters) rather than a simple amendment, which did not require the legislature’s participation. They also argued that the petitions to put the proposition on the ballot (which circulated prior to the May Supreme Court legalization of same-sex marriage) were now misleading, because they had stated that the proposition would not change marriage laws (untrue after May) and would have no fiscal impact.
State Attorney Jerry Brown has stated that "marriages that have been entered into subsequent to the [May 15] Supreme Court opinion will be recognized by the California Supreme Court. . . . I would think the court, in looking at the underlying equities, would most probably conclude that upholding the marriages performed in that interval [before the election] would be a just result."
Some constitutional scholars are agreeing that the amendment cannot be applied retroactively so the marriages will stand. This was the motive behind a number of my friends making sure they got legally married prior to the election.
The state constitution will define marriage as only between one man and one woman. California does have a domestic partnership act, but separate but equal (HAH!) is NOT equal. Under domestic partnership, couples do NOT get right of inheritance, nor do they have protection with regard to health care decisions. For example, they could be denied the right to ride in an ambulance with their partner, or make health care decisions for them if they did not have separate power of attorney for health care.