Breaking News: CA Supreme Court declines immedate action on gay marriages

[FreeState]

BREAKING NEWS: State Supreme Court declines immediate action on gay marriages

http://www.signonsandiego.com/

Story coming... here it is (edited)

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040227-1653-ca-gaymarriage.html

and another

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040228/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_6

[proud patriot]

1. :-)

:-)

[slinkerwink]

2. is that good or bad?

[foreigncorrespondent]

5. It is very good.

It means the marriages can continue happening. :)

[Pale_Rider]

3. Evidence as to irreparable harm apparently ...

... isn't clear enought for an immediate injunction.

On edit: that would be an immediate temporary injunction.

[slinkerwink]

4. oh, that's good then!

[thebaghwan]

21. Yes, as a paralegal, I can tell you that in order to get a Temporary

Restraining Order (TRO) you must be able to show irreparable harm to the requesting party. This is very good news!!!

[Ediacara]

6. Court won't stop marriages

"Instead, the justices told the city and a conservative group that opposes gay marriages to file new legal briefs by March 5 in response to the attorney general's petition."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20040227-1653-ca-gaymarriage.html

[travisleit01]

7. WOO HOO!!!

Calimary coined the term: "Marriage Discrimination Amendment" - let's start using that to describe what Musgrave, Bush, et. al support. Make it catch on like "activist judges"

Another victory for those of us against the Marriage Discrimination Amendment!

[Robin Hood]

27. Marriage Discrimination Amendment!

I love it.That makes sense.

[Technowitch]

8. My crossed fingers are cramping...

My partner and I (together seven years so far, and married (in our hearts) for six) have an appointment on the 9th.

Chances are looking like we'll get to have our wedding in SF after all...

-Technowitch

[ozymandius]

9. Bravo! Congratulations to you both!

And welcome to DU! :toast:

[stevedeshazer]

11. Wish you both the best

This is an amazing time.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi Technowitch!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[aquart]

14. Mazel tov!

[WillyT]

15. That's Great Technowitch, Congrats !!!

Best Wishes, and Welcome To DU!!!

:toast::bounce::toast:

[Jax]

18. Congratulations to you both!!!

You are heroes in my book, you are standing up for your rights.

Crossing my fingers right there with ya!

Be happy and WELCOME to DU! :toast: :thumbsup:

Jax

[Resistance]

19. I hope it works out for you Technowitch

The prospects must be terribly exciting for you both.

[thebaghwan]

22. Truly outstanding! Welcome to the DU!!

n/t

[slinkerwink]

23. congratulations to you guys!

:yourock:

[lcooksey]

29. Congratulations

Good for you, and welcome to DU!
:grouphug:

[stevedeshazer]

10. Arnold got slapped down!

That's my first reaction.

[aquart]

16. I like it! Do it again!

[stevedeshazer]

20. Okay!

[goclark]

24. Do It Again, Do It Again We Like It!

Slap that phony Arnold out of the water!

Yea for the brave Mayor of San Francisco!

Happy for the couple planning to be married on the 9th,you deserve the best!

:party:

[Resistance]

13. awesome

:party:

[mike1963]

17. What a fascinating dynamic. The more knots tied, the more it moves into

the 'mainstream' (whatever the hell that means these days) and that's good, and the more it pisses off the fundies, which is probably bad. So far I think it's a wash, but it's gonna be a verrrrry interesting year!
:D

To my everlasting shame, when I was a teen ager in the 50s, I was basically a racist. And a putative christian (Methodist, same as Chimpy)...but got over both and I'm a happy guy. ;-)

[yellowcanine]

25. I think the term is fait accompli

It is going to be very difficult to "undo marriages" - unless a court decides that they were performed while a law that has stood up to CONSTITUTIONAL scrutiny was in effect. Constitutional amendments ratified or laws passed after the fact cannot undo the marriages. Too bad Jerry Failwell.

[Dogmudgeon]

26. A Gay Strategery?

1. Tens of thousands of Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Transgender couples get married in every state that will allow it.

2. Various rulings and laws outlaw the practice.

3. In every legal venue, a large proportion of the GLBT couples seek standing before the court, file a large number of individual lawsuits against Marriage Discrimination activists, and collectively file class-action suits, for an average of ten non-trivial, non-frivolous lawsuits per instance of denied marriage.

4. Every time there is a civil dispute where under marriage there would be none (e.g., child custody, property division, power of attorney, incapacity), the same process is repeated.

5. These actions are based on a) Equal Protection; b) Civil Rights acts from the 1960s; c) Sweatt v. Painter and Brown v. The Board of Education (inter alia) overturning "Separate but Equal" rulings; d) avoidance of Irreparable Harm; e) Constitutional issues involving privacy, f) freedom of association, g) freedom of conscience/religion, h) non-enumerated rights (Amendments 9, 10).

6. The legal system becomes flooded with non-trivial Civil Rights actions. And carefully note that phrase: non-trivial Civil Rights actions.

7. Every case that is denied standing or declined a hearing becomes another instance where the GLBT community can assert that their rights had been denied and, in many cases, that Dominionist Christianity had been privileged or instituted -- leading to the possibility of thousands of more non-trivial actions.

It could also make "Dominionist Christianity" a political buzzword like "Secular Humanism", except that the large amount of literature from the Chalcedon Institute (and other such think-tanks) would argue for its existence as an actual agenda.

Any discussion hereupon and thereunto?

--bkl
I-ANAL

[BR_Parkway]

28. What is the significance of the term Non-Trivial

not sure why you state to carefully note the phrase.

I had asked a question in another post that got buried about

1. I have the right to marry my partner now, even if not legally recognized. If an amendment passes, then the government has "taken" something from me (and every other GLBT person) Wouldn't we have standing to make a financial claim, just as we do when the government "takes" property under the guise of "greater good"?
   
   
2. Since Shrub has called for an amendment based on religion, hasn't he broken his oath of office to "uphold and defend" the Constitution? Why not a call for impeachment? Why not lawsuits NOW based on freedom of religion arguments? If the congress did pass an amendment by the 2/3 requirement, can the Supreme Court strike it down as unconstitutional prior to the states ratification under freedom of religion?
   

[Dogmudgeon]

30. Non-trivial v. Frivolous

"Trivial" usually translates to "frivolous". The big talking point these days is "frivolous lawsuits". Admittedly, each are fuzzy terms, but the more evidence and instances of loss that can be documented, the more substantial the case becomes.

A non-trivial action would be one brought for a tort or a civil rights violation that results in significant financial and legal loss. If a gay couple was denied the right to marry, and one of the partners was in a car accident and left comatose, the other partner would have no say in that person's health care. There has been at least one such case, and it involved the comatose partner's parents being vindictive fundies.

I didn't use the phraseology to deprecate gay marriage -- I used it to make sure it was understood that these actions would be brought for reasons other than taunting the judiciary. Frivolous claims can be dismissed with a wave of the judicial hand, but non-frivolous (non-trivial) filings can't be so easily dismissed without the judge facing an inquiry him or herself.

As to your questions -- here's my best guesses.

#1, you have lost nothing if you were permitted nothing. You would have no claim unless you were legally married and then that marriage was invalidated. Unfair, yes, but that seems to be how it works now.

#2, Shrub didn't break his oath of office by proposing a faith-based amendment, and "the Constitution" in this case is understood to mean the entire United States of America, both real and abstract (as in people and land, philosophy and "honor"). Anybody can propose anything, as the first amendment allows. I don't deny Bush his right to field a religious amendment, but I'll fight it if he does propose it.

Even if the Supreme Court does allow religious laws to stand, chances are they will be overturned within a decade or two. Plessy v. Ferguson enshrined "Separate but Equal" in law, but it was overturned about 60 years later by Brown v. Board of Education which came after several other tries, many of which were partially successful.

The ideal solution, IMHO, would be for the GLBT movement to force the courts to choose between Marriage and Civil Unions as the legal standard, with the idea that Marriage is the religious union and Civil Unions non-religious. You could marry your partner right now, but the legal part of it would be undecided until a Civil Unions law was enacted. The Roman Catholic church could deny the sacrament of Matrimony and it would only be a cause among Catholic reformationists.

As I said, I'm no lawyer, but it seems like these are pretty "fundamental" legal issues in themselves. I'm confused how they became issues for the Godly folks in the first place. It's like the crusade to ban the teaching of evolution in schools -- it has little religious significance, even Fundy kids need to know what the world of science thinks of the idea, and there ought to be bigger issues to fight for. But then again, we're not dealing with rational argument, we're dealing with religion.

300,000 couples with 5 million weighty actions before the courts would "send a message" loud and clear that bigotry, faith-based or otherwise, is un-American.

--bkl

[arwalden]

31. Bookmarking This For Later Reference, BKL

Thanks!!

-- Allen