Steve G.

Breaking News: California Supreme Court denies stay of gay marriage decision

In Libertarian on June 4, 2008 at 6:02 pm

SAN FRANCISCO – California’s highest court on Tuesday refused to stay until after the November election its decision legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue.

An initiative that would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage has qualified for the ballot. Its passage would overrule the court’s decision.

The Supreme Court says its ruling will be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

Read the rest of this MSNBC breaking news article here.

  1. And now another group of people have to get permission from the government to get married…

    What’s next? A license to drink water? I can already see the retard caucus celebrating their new-found “equality” when that one comes to be.

  2. The ruling is the correct one to make. Whether you agree with marriage licenses or not, the CA SC properly ruled that it made its ruling and that if the gay-marriage ban passes in November (and it might, because most CA voters are utterly stupid as yesterday’s Prop 98/99 voting showed), then the ruling (and a stay of it) become a moot point anyway.

  3. What this enables, disinter, is that G/L couples in CA will be able to share in the full legal rights of marriage, including inheritance and hospital visitation. This is something they have long sought.

    Now I DO agree with you that we need to move beyond this by moving beyond licenses. The vibe I’ve been hearing out here is that by allowing same-gender licenses the same way interracial marriages are now allowed, we make it more obvious that the license is a tax grab more than anything else.

    I think the biggest stumbling block is that couples want the rights that come with the license, i.e. hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. REmember that not so long ago you needed to be married just to live under the same roof. There’s a lot of stuff that comes with the title “Mrs.” and as a married woman myself yes, that is very nice.

    I do see some potential solutions. One could be to make a church wedding that has no governmental license equivalent to a gov’t sanctioed wedding so long as there are no complicating factors such as consanguinity. I assure you many churches check on this already quite aside from the gov’t license. Remember that for athiests there are halls of freethought and conceivably weddings could be done through those somehow.

    Another is the prenuptual. By dealing with the legal issues in a legal document, much of the marriage perks can be preserved.

    Just food for thought.

  4. And California LGBT couples will hopefully be able to parlay this victory into a successful court case against DOMA, opening up things like immigration and health care tax deductions (both of which Mike Nelson/”disinter” classifies as “welfare”).

  5. Lidia,

    I have also been thinking about the concept of prenup contracts for a few months now. In my mind, responsible people don’t enter into important relationship without some sort of legal agreement. Why do people enter into marriage without a contract? We don’t even have to call it marriage at all. For legal purposes, it’s simply a “personal relationship contract” that would outline some basic things like hospital visitations, finances, and the usual issues all people in relations deal with. This can cover same sex relationships, hetero relationships and even polyamorous relationships (which are apparently on the rise).

  6. Not a bad idea at all.

    Yes, polyamory is definitely on the rise. I even got an email in my inbox last year about a conference that was held here in So. Cal, about the subject (sent on a list I subscribe to… no, I’m not in that lifestyle) If the organizers could expect enough couplings to pay for what looked like a pretty expensive conference– it can’t be all that rare now.

  7. What this enables, disinter, is that G/L couples in CA will be able to share in the full legal rights of marriage, including inheritance and hospital visitation. This is something they have long sought.

    Have you ever heard of private agreements/contracts? You are suggesting that the government grants rights, which it does not.

  8. Why do people enter into marriage without a contract? We don’t even have to call it marriage at all. For legal purposes, it’s simply a “personal relationship contract” that would outline some basic things like hospital visitations, finances, and the usual issues all people in relations deal with. This can cover same sex relationships, hetero relationships and even polyamorous relationships (which are apparently on the rise).

    Bingo. My partner and I have contracts that cover all of these things. There is no benefit to marriage for us, except the un-libertarian welfare that Ms. Miller begs for.

  9. disinter – Can a contract give you hospital visitation rights, though? Why would the hospital be bound to respect the contract?

  10. Durable power of attorney; living will; hospital visitation authorization

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: