Sliding down on a crazy carpet ([info]ladylakira) wrote,
@ 2009-05-26 16:51:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:life

Prop 8 upheld in California
For an interesting and in-depth interpretation of exactly what the California Supreme Court's majority decision means, take a look at this post by [info]jimkeller. The short? Prop 8 sets a precedent where rights can be taken away by a majority vote.

Update: And here, an interesting interpretation that is more optimistic. In short, if this interpretation is true, Prop 8 has been whittled down to mean that it takes away the term marriage but does not take away the right for same-sex couples to enter into a familial relationship which in all ways but name resemble a marriage. Keep in mind that all it says is that Prop 8 does not expressly forbid such marriages-but-not-called-that - it just says that Prop 8 doesn't completely modify the previous decision that banning gay marriages is unconstitutional. Of course, what this marriage-but-not-called-that is isn't discussed.




(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]troubleinchina
2009-05-27 05:53 am UTC (link)
The problem with the latter bit (and I own to not having read it - I'm all prop8-ed out today) is that there are certain legal things that come in with the term "marriage" in the U.S. that don't come in with "common law" or "civil unions", including health care coverage - something very very important in the US - and immigration rights.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ladylakira
2009-05-27 12:55 pm UTC (link)
Oh, absolutely. There is, as yet, no marriage-but-not-called-that. There are only things-inspired-by-marriage.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]finaira
2009-05-27 03:51 pm UTC (link)
I'm finding this exceedingly interesting. Seeing as my knowledge of legal process is nigh non-existent, it sounds like that the Supreme Court of California didn't want to be forced to change their opinions by Prop 8. This may be due to their sense of power or may be due to their common sense.

Either way, it's still good news to know that marriage (let's call them, er, quigglies. I *like* that term.) is still acceptable for same-sex couples in that state. However, the issue with the label change is a dangerous one. I mean, we use labels all the time to discriminate between groups and I have no doubt that this will be used in that way. Or that some people will reject the label and still refer to their quigglies as a marriage and whatnot which will cause friction.

Hell, they should pass a motion to rename all marriages in California to quigglies. So much better. Just say it with me: quiggly, quiggly, quiggly. Hee!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ladylakira
2009-05-27 05:39 pm UTC (link)
Gay marriage is accepted so long as it occurred before Prop 8 was voted in. The decision implies that quigglies would be okay, but as yet, there are no quigglies. There are only things like marriage but which aren't, quite. To take advantage of the quigglies loophole, there would have to be a movement to create quigglies, which is sort of a step backwards and useless legal baggage.

Mind you, if marriages were all renamed quigglies, I'd get quiggled tomorrow. Heh. Quiggled.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(4 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…