california decision

[Sarah Bickerton]

Hey all,

I expect you have all heard about the california supreme court decision
today:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040812/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_14

I mean, I think we al expected the decision against Newsom, but them to rule
to annull all 4000-odd marriages ... thats just bigotry, no matter how you
cut it. Sure, Newsom's act is contrary to state law, but couldn't they have
possibly put the annullment decision on hold until the constitutionality of
the law is ruled on?

Apparently not.

How fucking dare they?

*sigh* I just felt sick so I went back home into my neighbourhood as I
simply couldn't study.

SarahB
dejected shoes

_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx

[s***@europa.com]

Post by Sarah Bickerton
I expect you have all heard about the california supreme court decision
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040812/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_14
I mean, I think we al expected the decision against Newsom, but them to rule
to annull all 4000-odd marriages ... thats just bigotry, no matter how you
cut it. Sure, Newsom's act is contrary to state law, but couldn't they have
possibly put the annullment decision on hold until the constitutionality of
the law is ruled on?
Apparently not.
How fucking dare they?

my initial reaction was the same as yours, but after thinking awhile i'm
not so sure that the annulments are totally bad. i'm not a lawyer, but i
do believe that tossing the marriages out gives all of the couples the
legal standing they need to go to court to force the marriages to be
reinstated. this gives supporters of same-sex marriage another legal
avenue to pursue in addition to the sf court case already working its way
up.

another unintended consequence is that the annulled marriages are likely
to weigh very heavily on the consciences of the california supremes when
they decide whether barring same-sex marriages violates the state
constitution. it's one thing for queers not to be able to marry, but it's
another to toss out the marriages of 4,000 couples. that *will* matter
when the big decision is made.

if anyone wants to read the supreme court opinion (including the opinions
of the two judges that disagreed with the decision to annul the
marriages), it's here:
http://news.findlaw.com/nytimes/docs/glrts/lckyrsf81204opn.pdf

on a related subject, isn't it interesting that today also saw the
governor of new jersey out himself in the process of announcing his
resignation?

sarah heather cardin
bootses

[Devra]

Post by Sarah Bickerton

Post by Sarah Bickerton
I expect you have all heard about the california supreme court

decision

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040812/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_calif_14

Post by Sarah Bickerton

Post by Sarah Bickerton
I mean, I think we al expected the decision against Newsom, but them

to

Post by Sarah Bickerton
rule
to annull all 4000-odd marriages ... thats just bigotry, no matter how
you cut it. Sure, Newsom's act is contrary to state law, but couldn't

they

Post by Sarah Bickerton

Post by Sarah Bickerton
have possibly put the annullment decision on hold until the
constitutionality of the law is ruled on?
Apparently not.
How fucking dare they?

sarah hc...

Post by Sarah Bickerton
my initial reaction was the same as yours, but after thinking awhile i'm
not so sure that the annulments are totally bad. <snip>

there's another really interesting twist that's a positive. early in the
decision, the justices put out that this decision is setting a precedent
having nothing to do with same sex marriage, and everything to do with
following the law whether you like it or not...they gave several examples,
the last of which was the best:

*************
Indeed, another example might illustrate the point even more clearly:
the same legal issue would arise if the statute at the center of the
controversy were the recently enacted provision (operative January 1,
2005) that imposes a ministerial duty upon local officials to accord the
same rights and benefits to registered domestic partners as are granted to
spouses (see Fam. Code, § 297.5, added by Stats. 2003, ch. 421, § 4)), and
a local official — perhaps an officeholder in a locale where domestic
partnership rights are unpopular — adopted a policy of refusing to
recognize or accord to registered domestic partners the equal treatment
mandated by statute, based solely upon the official’s view (unsupported
by any judicial determination) that the statutory provisions granting such

rights to registered domestic partners are unconstitutional because they
improperly amend or repeal the provisions of the voter-enacted initiative
measure commonly known as Proposition 22, the California Defense of
Marriage Act (Fam. Code, § 308.5) without a confirming vote of the
electorate, in violation of article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the
California Constitution.
*************

in other words...wanna play tough? okay, you forced us to say it--legally
you're right. but don't try crossing us, because we'll apply the same
standard across the board!

it seems pretty clear to me that the justices did what they could to limit
the scope of their decision, and apparently encouraging the challenge to
the existing law, "through proper channels." in the long term, i don't
think it's a net loss--there's a lot here to help the movement go forward,
both legally and psychologically.

dev
my usually politically silent feeties putting up their two cents'

[Sarah Bickerton]

*nods* yeah, Sarah, after thinking about it for a while, I did come to
similar thoughts strategically ... but also I can't help but think about
what this does on a personal level to those couples, long term goals aside.
It's gotta hurt like a bitch.

Sarahb
thinking about dinner shoes

Post by s***@europa.com
my initial reaction was the same as yours, but after thinking awhile i'm
not so sure that the annulments are totally bad. i'm not a lawyer, but i
do believe that tossing the marriages out gives all of the couples the
legal standing they need to go to court to force the marriages to be
reinstated. this gives supporters of same-sex marriage another legal
avenue to pursue in addition to the sf court case already working its way
up.
another unintended consequence is that the annulled marriages are likely
to weigh very heavily on the consciences of the california supremes when
they decide whether barring same-sex marriages violates the state
constitution. it's one thing for queers not to be able to marry, but it's
another to toss out the marriages of 4,000 couples. that *will* matter
when the big decision is made.

_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx

[Heather C A Malcolm]

I love ASLM... Wha\t a sid of a decision though - owever, I agree with Sarah
HC that the bigots have shot themselves in their collective foot with
this... Nobody likes a bully!

Heather
Bare feet in non-emergency mode
-----Original Message-----
From: ***@lists.panix.com [mailto:***@lists.panix.com] On Behalf Of Sarah
Bickerton
Sent: 13 August 2004 01:06
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: Re: [ASLM] california decision




*nods* yeah, Sarah, after thinking about it for a while, I did come to
similar thoughts strategically ... but also I can't help but think about
what this does on a personal level to those couples, long term goals aside.
It's gotta hurt like a bitch.

Sarahb
thinking about dinner shoes

Post by s***@europa.com
my initial reaction was the same as yours, but after thinking awhile
i'm not so sure that the annulments are totally bad. i'm not a lawyer,
but i do believe that tossing the marriages out gives all of the
couples the legal standing they need to go to court to force the
marriages to be reinstated. this gives supporters of same-sex marriage
another legal avenue to pursue in addition to the sf court case already
working its way up.
another unintended consequence is that the annulled marriages are
likely to weigh very heavily on the consciences of the california
supremes when they decide whether barring same-sex marriages violates
the state constitution. it's one thing for queers not to be able to
marry, but it's another to toss out the marriages of 4,000 couples.
that *will* matter when the big decision is made.

_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx

--
-----------------------------
ASLM is a moderated newsgroup.
Our webpage is at http://www.shoelesbians.com The archive is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aslm_archive/

Post directly to alt-shoe-lesbians-***@moderators.isc.org
Questions? Contact the mods at aslm+***@panix.com