(Untitled)

[wy1dchy1d]

So I was watching the news this morning, and there was a short segment about prop 8 in California. The jist of the segment was that there's the possibility it will be overturned despite the ruling in the November election. This thoroughly confuses me. What was the point on voting on it if those votes approving prop 8 will end up counting for

Comments

[troubleinchina]

Disclaimer: Everything I Know About U.S. Law I Learned From The Internet.

I believe there are two court-related issues going on.

The first is whether the marriages that went on before the vote took effect are valid or will be declared invalid.

The second is about whether the whole exercise was constitutional. Unfortunately, the act had to be passed before it could go to court to determine if it was illegal.

[scottwiser]

The main issue in the appeal is whether Prop 8 constituted an "amendment" to the California Constitution or a "revision

[scottwiser]

As far as the question of whether the gay marriages legalized during the interim period between the Supreme Court's ruling and Prop 8's passage would be grandfathered in, we have the Federal Constitutional prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws that should preserve these marriages.

On the other hand, the Court could just say that it does not matter whether they no longer consider these gay marriages "marriages" because these couples would still qualify as domestic partners under California law and would keep all of the benefits and protections married couple possess they currently possess under State law.

My gut feeling is that the gay marriages would be grandfathered in.

[wy1dchy1d]

I do think the gay marraiges performed prior to voting on prop 8 will be grandfathered in because they happened prior to the proposition being voted on. As to the court case, it is a tough decision either way; however, since it is something that has been voted on and passed, what does that mean to those who voted for it? If there was something wrong with the wording of prop 8 (as mentioned in an article on msnbc.com), why wasn't it contested prior to it being voted on? Even at that, who /really/ decides what the fundamental rights are?

[scottwiser]

Fundamental rights are a classic chicken and egg problem. Are fundamental rights fundamental because they are, or because we say they are? If fundamental rights are so fundamental, why do we even need to discuss whether they are or not? Are we slaves to vague provisions in a Constitution that our fathers created and 7 Judges get the luxury of interpreting in any manner they like? Are we slaves to the will of a simple majority of our peers notwithstanding the protections of equal justice we believe our Constitution gives us? These are all hard questions