The California Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco’s highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.
Overdue.
#182, pat,
If the issue ever gets to the Supreme Court (US) it will be determined that who can be “married” can be restricted. See polygamy.
The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction over matters covered by Federal laws and the United States Constitution. The individual States have jurisdiction over their own Constitution. The only time the US Supreme Court can assert jurisdiction over a State is if it violates the US Constitution.
*
Under the US Constitution, all States must respect the laws of other States.
Article IV
Section 2
Clause 1:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
XIV Amendment
…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
Therefore it appears that a legal marriage in one State must be recognized in another. This has previously happened when a person was married in a State that permitted persons of that age to marry then moving to a State where the person would be too young. Their marriage can only be regarded as legal with all the benefits afforded to anyone else being married.
Of course there are always loopholes that right wing courts find to nullify this and other protections of the Constitutions.
#185, Thomas,
Is the government still allowed to encode discrimination into their Constitution or does this represent a higher boundary of liberty beyond which no Constitution can pass?. I think it does.
The government may make any law it likes. First it must pass the State Constitution and second it must pass the US Constitution in order to be legally binding.
All State Constitutions must also meet the stipulations of the US Constitution. The US Constitution may only be amended in a proscribed manner, designed to hinder changing it on a whim.
So sure go ahead. Add whatever you want to your State laws and Constitution.
#188
> All State Constitutions must also meet the
> stipulations of the US Constitution. The US
> Constitution may only be amended in
> a proscribed
> manner, designed to hinder changing it
> on a whim.
Yes but I’m suggesting that there may be yet another level: the fundamental principles of liberty. Suppose for example, that the States passed an Amendment that prohibited women from getting employment. A Supreme Court judge could argue that the fundamental precepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness supersede this prohibition and effectively nullify it. It might very well be the case that even an Amendment at the Federal level would be invalid because of more fundamental principles of liberty. Such a ruling would of course create a Constitutional crisis as to the exact boundaries of judicial review.
Two articles discuss this case at The New Republic, both worth a read.
http://tinyurl.com/63dfns