Supreme Court O.K.s Gay Marriages
Posted by: Keith Carlson | 05/15/2008 11:02 AM
The California Supreme Court just ruled that the law limiting marriage to one man and one woman is unconstitutional. You can read about the decision here.
The key line from Chief Justice George: "... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," It was a 4 to 3 vote. California has now joined only Massachusetts in adopting this stance.
Interestingly--and perhaps tellingly--both states had the new interpretation of marriage provided by the courts as opposed to elected representatives or a vote of the people. It will now require a constitutional amendment to return the definition of marriage to its original form in the state.
This will have both state and national implications. In state, there will obviously be an impact on just about every agency and department--as well as employers and insurance companies--that will need to revise regulations to accommodate people under the new law. This will likely be somewhat mitigated by the fact that California has had civil unions for a few years, so the basic concept--under a different name--has already been around. Nationally, the U.S. Constitution has a "full faith and credit" clause (Art. IV, Sect. 1): "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." There ought to be some interesting cases coming when a California married couple seeks recognition of the married status in another state.
The key line from Chief Justice George: "... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," It was a 4 to 3 vote. California has now joined only Massachusetts in adopting this stance.
Interestingly--and perhaps tellingly--both states had the new interpretation of marriage provided by the courts as opposed to elected representatives or a vote of the people. It will now require a constitutional amendment to return the definition of marriage to its original form in the state.
This will have both state and national implications. In state, there will obviously be an impact on just about every agency and department--as well as employers and insurance companies--that will need to revise regulations to accommodate people under the new law. This will likely be somewhat mitigated by the fact that California has had civil unions for a few years, so the basic concept--under a different name--has already been around. Nationally, the U.S. Constitution has a "full faith and credit" clause (Art. IV, Sect. 1): "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." There ought to be some interesting cases coming when a California married couple seeks recognition of the married status in another state.
CATEGORY:
California Stuff
And it's a great day to be alive
I know the sun's still shining when I close my eyes
It's hard times in the neighborhood
But why can't everyday be just this good