Talk:Same-sex marriage in California

"Bottom Line" at the top

This article is very jumbled with a lot of facts thrown together. Even after reading it, the reader is still left uncertain exactly what is permitted and what is not. The start of the article should begin right off with the current defined legal status of same-sex partnerships, whats allowed, what isn't, and where it all stands. Not to be confused with whats being proposed, or whats in the process of occurring.--Joshua4 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How should this article interact with the Richard Kramer stuff I wrote? Should we move stuff from there to here? Dave (talk) 23:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Previous Same-Sex Marriage Bill

To Do: Add information about Leno's previous same-sex marriage bill which was defeated in the legislature. --LakeHMM 08:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

last information

The California Supreme Court today struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

cnn.com --212.51.63.249 (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add info on previous law

Since this article is on the broad topic of "Same Sex Marriage in CA", it is lacking in one respect: It does not address the (il)legality of same sex marriage prior to the previous ruling. Previously there was a law passed by the legislature (1972?) and also a proposition both of which criminalized same sex marriage. I think its important to understand these, to appreciate what has been overturned in this recent monumental decision. Substar (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)substar

Appeals?

Is the decision being appealed, like the Iowa decision was? CrazyC83 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It can't be apealed as it's riling is solely based on the states constitution and because of DOMA the SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction.--DrCito (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A California Supreme Court decision cannot be appealed.

effective date of gay marriage in california is incorrect

on the right-hand side of the article, there is a separate box that talks about the types of gay marriages/unions/arrangements in different states/countries.

It says "United States (MA, CA eff. 6/14/2008)"

the effective date should be 5/14/2008, not 6/14/2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.114.88 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's effective in 30 days. ⁽Дҭї₎ 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

oops. my bad :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.214.114.88 (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

California Supreme Court Review

The last paragraph refers to the Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment, name given by California Secretary of State, as the Marriage Protection Amendment. I move that the currently named Marriage Protection Amendment by changed to the name given by the California Secretary of State to avoid a wording bias until the Secretary of State affirms the current name or creates a new name for said proposed amendment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.46.244 (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

We should probably take a little time to figure this out. Is there someplace you can point to that supports that the Secretary of State gave the amendment the name "Limit on Marriage Constitutional Amendment"? The term "Limit on Marriage" does appear on some official State of California websites but it's not obvious from them that this is an official name given to the initiative. The published sources have called it by several names, most commonly the "Marriage Protection Amendment". We can create "redirect" pages for all of the different names people have used, then move the article over to match the official name once we're sure about the it. At that point we can use any of those names for a link title within the article, and changing the name of the link is just a simple stylistic correction that shouldn't really require any discussion or motions... 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruling is not yet final until 30 days

Lest non-lawyers readers be misled, the court decision 4-3, is not yet final, since it is highly divided, and one vote can change. So, under CA rules, an appeal or motion can be filed withing 30 days to stay it, and after May 15, as of now, no marriage can still be held pending the finality. Besides the November ballot might reverse or avoid this ruling by Constitutional amendment. I am a lawyer/judge, and our Philippine laws were copied from California federal rules of service. I repeat, just one vote can can change the 4-3 judgment. So I added this: Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that reversed interracial marriages ban, the Republican-dominated California Supreme Court, (in a 4-3 ruling, penned by Chief Justice Ronald George) struck down California's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law and a similar voter-approved 2000 law (passed with 61%). The judgment is not final, for the ruling can be reconsidered upon filing of appeal or motion within 30 days, as the Advocates for Faith and Freedom and the Alliance Defense Fund, inter aila, stated they would ask for a stay of the ruling. If the court denies the plea, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days. The 2006 census figures indicate that, California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households.news.yahoo.com, California's top court legalizes gay marriage Same-sex marriage opponents announced, however, that they gathered 1 million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to define marriage as between a man and woman, to effectively annul the decision.nytimes.com, Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling --Florentino floro (talk) 06:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a final ruling, effective in thirty days. The Supreme Court, or any court, can always reconsider or reverse itself on any matter but that would be very unusual and improbable. There was a lot of redundancy and some of the above material was already in the section so I've condensed it down. The % passage statistic is not relevant to the court's decision, nor are the number of same-sex households, nor the political parties of the justices - it was a legal decision. They could be relevant in an article or section on the court or same-sex politics, but not here. The constitutional amendment material duplicates something that is already in the article twice, and the number of signatures gathered is more relevant to the process of passing the initiative than to the supreme court decision - so I have created a new subsection for it. The initiative, if passed, does not annul the court's decision. The decision is still valid and in place, it has simply been overridden. It creates a new law, effective at or sometime after passage, that from that point forward all same sex marriages are invalid. It would not change the ruling that found laws against same sex marriage unconstitutional per the constitutional language in effect at the time, and its effect on existing same sex marriages is unclear and would likely be the subject of extensive litigation. Wikidemo (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Initiative

It appears that the article contains no specific mention of why gay marriage was illegal in the first place. The article should have a considerably large section on the initiative the voters passed eight years ago. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It links to the article on that law, Proposition 22. That article isn't the best organized, duplicates some material from elsewhere, and meanders a little off subject - but it does have some good coverage of that. It might make sense to add a little more detail on the existing law but I wouldn't want to create a WP:FORK by having two articles about the same thing. In response to your question I've added a link to Prop. 22 in a more prominent place earlier in the article. Wikidemo (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it probably would be good to add a little more. With what just happened yesterday, though, things are still kind of new. The article will probably improve in a few days. Thanks for your help. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Protection Amendment

This use of this term as the title for the section differs from what was approved by the California Secratary of State. This is clearly an attempt by conservatives to use biased wording to gain more support for their amendment. I move that the title marriage protection amendment be changed to the on approved by the Secratary of State office. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.115.223.32 (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who started the article and called it the Marriage Protection Amendment, which I did because that's what the sponsors and most of the sources call it. The Secretary of State's name "Limit on Marriage Amendment" seems highly political as well but I agree, we should use the official name. There have been lawsuits before over the state's attempt to rename these anti same sex marriage initiatives, claiming that the sponsors' names were misleading - an interesting subject in itself. We ought to stay out of the debate and go with whatever name is official, whoever wins that fight. The only hitch is that I don't see a good source that shows this really is the official name. Sure it's listed that way on a few government websites but I don't see a statement anywhere that confirms that they've officially renamed it. If we can get a line on the final name we should rename the article, leave redirects out there for the various alternate names, and change the links to read the same as the article name. You can run this page here to find all those links, five so far.Wikidemo (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)