Reading theo pinion, the CA Supreme Court seemed to think that the only thing Prop 8 changed is what single-sex unions were allowed to be called, and that apart from the name, the legal rights and privileges were the same for both single- and opposite-sex.
At least they upheld the same-sex marriages that got in under the wire.
At least they upheld the same-sex marriages that got in under the wire.
Which I don't understand. Isn't that a bit contradictory? NOT that I think those marriages should be annulled or whatever they were going to do, it's just, geez, make up your minds.
Apparently not, because to this court, the only difference is what they're called, and it doesn't apply retroactively because the existence of these marriages supposedly doesn't have any effect on governmental process pertaining to them.
Which, yeah. In real life there's a lot of discrimination against the rights of people in a union as opposed to a marriage, but not in the rarefied World Of Law, apparently.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-26 05:14 pm (UTC)at least one post on my f'list would seem to indicate we lost this round, though. :(
no subject
Date: 2009-05-26 05:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-26 05:29 pm (UTC)At least they upheld the same-sex marriages that got in under the wire.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-26 05:43 pm (UTC)Which I don't understand. Isn't that a bit contradictory? NOT that I think those marriages should be annulled or whatever they were going to do, it's just, geez, make up your minds.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-26 05:57 pm (UTC)Which, yeah. In real life there's a lot of discrimination against the rights of people in a union as opposed to a marriage, but not in the rarefied World Of Law, apparently.