Just a short time ago it was announced that Same-Sex Marriage would be legalized in CA starting in 30 days. I don't yet have any detailed information, but it's already hit the news broadcasts as I type this.

http://apnews.excite.com/[...]G7.html

"May 15, 84 PM (ET)

By LISA LEFF

(AP) Domestic partners Davis Osterkamp, left, and Larry Martinez kiss near a Castro District street car...
Full Image

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after - religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage...

...The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage."

There is more if you click the link above.

Let's all just wait and see on this one. After all, if this amendment does not pass, and gay marriages in California are legal there, according to the Constitution all 50 states are supposed to recognize this marriage. This is known as comity. Same sex couples will stampede to California to get married (after meeting residency requirements). Then they can life in any other state and be as a legally married couple. In theory.

This means another state will challenge the validity of the marriage. Give this another year or two, if not more, before the Supreme Court might even hear it, if they choose to accept it at all.

California has no residency requirement for marriage.

The US Supreme Court is a major risk for states. If it decides same-sex marriage is constitutional, it could require all 50 states to permit it. The only real basis to deny it is based on religious ideals and we do have a theoretical separation of Church and State. This could cascade and turn out to be a bad move for religious fundamentalists on many issues.

I have no knowledge of California residency laws, so I appreciate that knowledge.

My point, however, is with the U.S. Constitution. In the Fourth Article, the citizens of one state are entitled to the same rights and privileges of the other states. This means my driver's license is just as valid in California as in Illinois, my home state.

The same goes for marriage. The "Loving" case, of which the woman just passed away last week, the Supreme Court overturned state laws banning interracial marriages. In theory, if no California constitution amendment bans gay marriage, anyone same sex couple who marries in California have the right to expect their marriage to be recognized in all fifty states. The Supreme Court does not have to validate it, according to the Constitution. Again, this is in theory.

The notion of the Supreme Court having the authority to invalidate laws is not sanctioned by the Constitution. The idea of judicial review goes back to the common law structure of England. It is merely an accepted fact.

It has also come to be an accepted fact that something like gay marriage needs to be validated by the Supreme Court, who is supposedly there to interpret federal law. Just like the abortion issue. The Supreme Court is looked upon as the "final word," although an amendment to the Constitution can even overturn any of their decisions.

As far as I know the ERA has never managed to become law. That can be a long road. The fact that same-sex marriage isn't specifically forbidden in the Constitution leaves a lot of open ground.

The legal issue of state and federal laws conflicting can be a rat's nest. In CA it is legal to Rx and possess Rx marijuana. Federal law makes it illegal. CA law enforcement agencies won't help the Feds enforce their law in CA. Someone even set up an ATM like delivery system for medical marijuana for those with processed Rxs. Just punch in your PIN number.

The "Assault Weapons" ban resulted in a CA state law which resulted in a law being passed in Los Angeles. The CA law was changed. The City law stands on the books...........but the District Attorney's office states it is not being enforced.....and it IS in fact unenforcible under CA state law.

There really is no chance in Hell that an anti-same-sex State Constitution amendment would pass in CA. With 1/8 of the country's population, that means a significant voting block on national issues.

Wendy, you have no idea how much I am enjoying this exchange. Since one of my major fields is constitutional history, this is great.

There have been several Supreme Court cases concerning state law v. federal law, and more than once the Court did hold that STATE officials are not required to uphold federal law if state laws prohibit it.

You are right - the ERA never passed. However, currently federal, and state law, prohibit such discrimination. These same laws, in many states, also prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. And, like you said, enforcement is another matter.

Now, if those of us who are transgendered can start to make such strides.

I would not underestimate the high level of motivation of the conservative voters in areas like Orange County and the San Fernando Valley. Remember, this is the state that elected Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger governor.

Should this come up for referendum, I would not be surprised if a state ban wins in November.

I'm not sure I share all your excitement Wendy. The California Supreme Court overturned a VOTER APPROVED BAN on same-sex marriages. And you don't think voters will turn out again for a constritutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.?
Marsha

Gov. Arnold did say he would not support a consitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.

This is going to be interesting.

Generally, a Constitutional Amendment requires more than a simple majority. I'll have to check California's Constitution to verify that.

The society here is changing as it is everywhere. As more GLBT people come out, more people realize, as I did 30 yrs ago, that they know a GLBT person or have one in their family. This humanizes the monsters the religious right presents us as. It' harder to deny someone you know the right to be happy unless you are pretty rigid in your beliefs. Funny how un-Christian many devout Christians are.....or should I say "Old Testament".

You are right, I have a tendency to get a mindset that no reasonable person can vote for something so heinous as to not allow someone to love another person so much that they want a life-bond between them. I've been thinking about the possibility of introducing a California Constitutional Amendment to deny Freedom of Worship since it clearly results in many people attempting to deny life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to so many others. Not that I would want such a law to pass, but to make people see the other side of the coin of restricted freedoms and denied equal treatment. Just stand out by people collecting signatures for the same-sex marriage ban and collect signatures for No Freedom of Worship. They'd probably burn me.

Golly gee, I really do appreciate getting an up-date in constitutional law. It's been awhile since I took Gov't. classes.
As a side bit of info, the San Francisco Bay area is a world unto itself - ultra personal rights (I'll avoid the term" liberal") and most of the state understands their thinking. Naturally, there are pockets of "retardation." That's life. I lived in the Bay Area from 1975 -1991 and enjoyed it very much.
Sorry for being wordy but the issue of gay marriage involves money(what's new?)- the insurance industry outside of CA doesn't want partners to be entitled to death benifits.

HI All,
There is an interesting fall-out of this decisions on our U.S. elections. It seems that during the last presidential election San Francisco had ok-ed the issuance of Same sex licenses. The democratic party was not ready to address this subject, and SF Mayor Gavin Nusome was shunned by his party and blamed in part for John Kerry's loss to G. Bush.

On last nights coverage of the announcements, a number of commentators were indicating that the democratic party AGAIN was not ready to address this subject and it's effect on both of the democratic candidates. I'll be curious as to how each of the candidates stand. It will be an interesting week. DOes anyone know Hillary and Obama's position on this?
Hugz,
Michelle Lynn

Michelle,
I believe that the SF same-sex marriage license episode was designed to bring about exactly what happened, a state supreme court review and decision on the law in CA.

HI Wendy,
Yes it was designed exactly for that. The issue I was bringing up was that the timing seemed to also have a detrimental unanticipated effect on the last elections. The S.F. mayor indicted his shunning and being blamed by party officials (on last election) in a post announcement interview yesterday. I truly hope this time around the democratic party will manage the issue better.

Hugz,
MichelleLynn

Once again Wendy I don't think there is a chance in he$% that it will survive a constitutional amendment vote. California requires a 2/3rds majority to pass a constitutional amendment. Proposition 22 which banned same sex marriage in the first place in 2000 got 61% of the vote. You know all the gay rights folks came out to vote that time and with all the publicity the opponents to same-sex marriage will come out of the woodwork and easily pass an amendment banning it. Personally I believe they should have the same rights, just don't call it marriage. Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.
Hugs,
Marsha

From my U.S. presidential campaign website:
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE/CIVIL UNIONS-For too long, this issue has been characterized by mean-spirited attitudes on both sides of the debate. What does it matter how the relationship of two people who cohabitate is labelled semantically? On the other hand, why are segments of the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered community so adamant about imposing their concept of the institution of marriage on our society when there are already adequate legal methods available to them to ensure that same-sex couples are able to function in the same manner as heterosexual couples? As with the issue of abortion, Ferguson will be guided by the views of the majority of the American people concerning this issue. However, no one should be discrimated against for any reason, including sexual orientation, and this candidate will use his influence as president to lobby for the repeal of sodomy laws in states which continue to persecute their citizens on the basis of this type of legislation. The government has no place in the bedrooms of its citizens. Ferguson is particularly concerned about the rights of transgendered people in our society.

I've never cared if it was called "marriage". I only care that their legal rights are the same. It's ridiculous that a patient's SO can be refused the right to visit them in a hospital unless the patient is conscious because they are not "family". This has happened. In fact some families enjoy denying that permission to them. Of course the big issue is the coverage that an employee's spouse gets such as medical coverage. Big business spends a lot of money to stop same-sex marriages from being legal because they don't want to have to pay out that money. It has nothing to do with their morality.........only their lack of it. It is patently as unfair as paying pregnant mothers maternity leave when unmarried employees don't get paid time off. In essence, it reduces the benefits everyone should get by the amount spent on the person who chooses to have children. Why should I subsidize their "hobby" or why should someone subsidize me if my partner is pregnant and takes time off. Fairness and equality are the issues. Marriage in the Church is a religious issue, but there should be a legal equivalent for Same-Sex couples.

Now I'm going to turn that right around and ask why if John gets thousands of dollars of extra coverage for a wife and/or children, I should not receive a larger paycheck in the amount the company pays for his family? I'm doing the same job for less compensation. Not fair, just because he's married. I believe the number of legally un-partnered people in the US is currently 61% of the adult population. So why is this minority getting "paid" more because they married? That's like the old argument that women should be paid less because the men have to support a family.

I don't reject that stand, however I still object to discrimination against Gay/Lesbian partnerships in providing this compensation. Give it to them to....then pay me more because I'm single and don't want extra coverage....or at least let me choose someone I want to be covered by the company. Or stop covering families altogether and let people pay for their "collection" themselves....might help reduce overpopulation.

OK, so biologically, procreation is pretty essential to perpetuation of the species and all that, however in this day and age, the choice to reproduce is just that, a conscious choice.

In my union days, I always objected to the practice of bumping another member ahead of me in violation of my seniority because "he just had a kid." Well, I'm happy for him, but why should I be required to make a sacrifice to support someone else's offspring?

As has been observed previously in this thread, these issues are largely driven by the short sighted, bottom line policies of the insurance industry.

This position on the part of the insurance industry is inherently flawed, and in the long run, incredibly bad business.

For instance, in the case of a TS patient who is identified and treated early enough in life, this person is unlikely to live a long life of denial and suppression resulting in the reproduction of the national average of 2.5 children.

The insurance industry bears the expense of childbirth, at an average cost of about $30,000 per child, not to mention that child's health care for the next 18 years at heaven knows what cost.

The average cost of treatment of a TS person might reach a maximum of $80,000 - $100,000 ( a liberal estimate), and is a one time expense, as opposed to an ongoing expenditure.

Similarly, the average gay couple is unlikely to reproduce, and the assumption of coverage for same sex partners is equally more cost effective than the expenses associated with child rearing.

The GLBT community finds ourselves in the position of basically bearing the burden of supporting the choice of others to establish a family.

Please do not get the impression that I disapprove of the whole family thing. I just don't choose to be a part of it, and I feel it's unfair to ask me to pay for it.

The insurance industry will surely fight tooth and nail to bring a gay marriage ban to referendum, and will vigorously play on the religious angle to compel conservative voters to support such a ban. Sadly, the GLBT lobby, even HRC, lacks the resources to compete with the campaign that will be supported by the deep pockets of the insurance industry to ban same sex unions.

This battle isn't over by a long shot. It's only just beginning.

Don't forget, Robyn, that a same-sex married couple may also adopt children and take the cost of raising them off the taxpayers, are more likely to raise a well-adjusted child than if that child did not have permanent parents. They are more likely to intervene earlier to see that a child with emotional or medical issues is treated, cutting the cost of treatment compared to late intervention.

Marsha, the latest poll in CA shows that 51% of California voters will oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and only 42% will vote for the amendment. 7% don't care or are undecided. As I thought, the attitude of Californians has shifted due to the increasingly open integration of gays/lesbians into the mainstream culture and the shift to bias against them becoming politically incorrect. The LAPD openly recruits gay and lesbian officers now. I'm sure the increasing number of openly GLBT persons on television is having the effect of desensitizing people to differences. Since I lived in in Silverlake (a community of very out gays and lesbians) for about six years, I got used to people being more open about their sexual preferences. Now I live in a middle class community, yet I'm aware of more openness in public and in the media than I was in Silverlake 9 yrs ago. There is no way they will get 2/3 of the voters to alter the constitution of CA to deny same-sex marriage.

Wendy, I have no issues with a legal way to give same-sex couples the benefits of married individuals, however my preference is not to change the definition of "marriage" in order to do it. As for the polls, it is really to early to give them any credibility. I do believe the democrat presidential candidate was suppose to be Hilliary by a mile. You may very well be correct because California opinion does not often mirror the other 49 states, or maybe as Obama put it, "I've been in 57 states, (with) I think one left to go." And he is the likely democrat candidate, geez!
Hugs,
Marsha