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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.50.9 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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 one 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)

These changes have apparently been implemented. I'm considering reverting them all unless someone can show that the real name is "Limit on Marriage" - I just can't find that. For us to use an obscure or unofficial name just because the common name is politicized is POV.Wikidemo (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no clear agreement on what the official name for proposed amendment is, I suggest referring to the amendment as the the "Limit on Marriage Amendment" with a parenthesized note "also known as the Marriage Protection Amendment." My rationale is as follows. First, LoM is how the amendment is referred to on the Secretary of State's website (http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008General, which seems more authoritative than the request for title document). Second, although both titles are arguably politicized, I see "limit on marriage amendment" as less politicized than "protect marriage amendment." This is because it is factual that this amendment would create a limit on marriages in California, regardless of whether someone agrees with those limits or not. Whereas it is definitely an opinion to say that the amendment would "protect marriage." I don't see using LoM as a POV issue since there is no clear official name at this point. Obviously once there is a clear official name, that article can be updated to reflect that. Nanobots (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, "Limit on Marriage" is the official title of the initiative. In California, proponents of a ballot measure submit their proposal (which often includes a name/title) to the Attorney General. His office then creates an official name and summary. This is the language that appears on the petition/ballot.

The draft of the measure includes the proposed title "California Marriage Protection Act" (these measure often include that sort of thing). Even if adopted, that "title" is not codified anywhere in the constitution or codes. People may use that name (or ignore it) even if the measure succeeds. The prevailing custom (even in the courts) is to use the ballot measure number to reference an initiative after passage ("Proposition 22" or "Proposition 13") rather than whatever the proponents suggested. We won't know what the number is until the measure qualifies for the ballot.

Having said all that, I think Nanobots' suggestion is probably the best solution. Use the official name of the initiative and the alternative in parens, at least on first reference.

Wonderbreadsf (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

--Blueboy1938 (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The initiative qualified for the ballot. I can't tell what number will be assigned. Can anyone find that?

Basically, state law requires the Attorney General to select a title for every ballot measure referred to the AG's Office. That title becomes the official name. The official name of a given ballot measure reflects whatever views the current AG holds. In this case, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. chose Limit on Marriage. Proponents of a measure propose a title that fits their views. Supporters will use names that encourage voters to pass the measure. Opponents will use names that encourage voters to reject it. Sehome Bay (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Secretary of State will issue proposition numbers in about a week (I'd expect on 27-Jun-2008, but you never know). By law, the bond measures will come first (two of them so far), then the constitutional amendments (four at the moment). It'll probably be Prop 103 or something close to that. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We should change the title to match the proposition number once it issues. That avoids the clearly political title "marriage protection", and the official but obviously politicized - even if accurate - name "limit on marriage". The proposition number will be the most official designation, probably what most peopel will end up calling it, and that's neutral. We can keep redirects from both of the titles, though. Wikidemo (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Brush up Your Legalese

In the third paragraph of the "California Supreme Court review" discussion, inter aila should be corrected to inter alios or "among others" since it is intended to indicate that there were other parties to the action that are omitted for the sake of brevity. Inter alia or "among other things" would be used to contract a list of objects. Also, as it is court latin, it probably should be italicized, since it is in a language different from the rest of the text.

I think et al. seems the more likely choice if we're straying into Latin legalese (not that "inter" is incorrect, just less common in this circumstance). It has the added value of avoiding inflection. Frankly, there's no reason for the Latin. English would do just fine here. Wonderbreadsf (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How will the legalization of same-sex marriage in California effect domestic partnership?

How will the legalization of same-sex marriage in California effect domestic partnership? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably won't have any impact at all whatsoever apart from there being fewer couples who choose this option because a marriage is more meaningful socially and holds more legal strength. Unlike Massachusetts, I don't think California will abolish domestic partnerships, especially since there is a large senior citizen constituency that is choosing this option instead of marriage (like there is the state of Arizona[1]) because under certain circumstances it is more tax-favorable and reduces the size of their estate. California allows heterosexuals to enter domestic partnerships on the condition that they aren't married. I'm sure full marriage will be granted on the condition that one voids out their domestic partnership in writing (so as to prevent legal complications), but I don't think the domestic partnership structure will be thrown out entirely. It will just become the more rarer structure of the two.76.171.53.59 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Next steps for the legislature

Has anyone seen whether the California legislature plans to re-send the same-sex marriage bill to Gov. Schwarzenegger? Did the bills he vetoed deal with domestic partnerships? I searched a little on google and found no answers about what California will do next (other than the constitutional amendment initiative). -Rrius (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Section on Limit on Marriage Amendment Needs Revision

The end of this section seems to devote an inordinate amount of time to comments made in one editorial about the pending amendment. In addition, it is garbled. If this editorial is even worth mentioning in an encyclopedia entry at all (which I doubt), it should be mentioned more clearly and more succinctly. I have tagged this section and will wait a few days before I make any edits.

SCBC (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thank you.

SCBC (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to be changed.

I propose replacing the current

The status of same-sex marriage in California has been a contentious political issue since at least the late 1970s.[1]

with

Same sex marriage is legal in California.

the contentiousness can be addressed later in the lead, but is now inappropriate as first sentence.--192.167.204.11 (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One question:

When did the Supreme Court of any state start making voter decisions? Oyeah, back when Bush was elected the first time... Doesn't any one see something wrong here? If the people vote it, then it shall be... How about following your own rule of law California...? Or should I say California Supreme Court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.231.249.137 (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The court was not making "voter decisions", it was reviewing the constitutionality of the law barring same-sex couples from marriage per the separation of powers. The idea that the human rights of minorities should be put up to majority vote doesn't work, the minority usually loses. That's why the courts exist independently of the elected positions, to uphold justice even when it conflicts with public opinion. Дҭї 14:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you shouldn't change the first sentence, but how is the current sentence "inappropriate"? I should think is just objective fact. After years of argument and debate, including introduction and expansion of domestic partnerships, there is now same-sex marriage. Even so, there is currently an amendment initiate to reverse it.

Also, can you avoid the word "legal"? It always makes it sound as though entering a same-sex marriage was criminal, but is now legal. "Same-sex marriage in California has been available since..." sounds better to me. -Rrius (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, we should start by highlighting the facts and not the controversy around them. So I'm fine with the change. In the unlikely event the constitution changes as a result of the election we can change "legal" to "illegal." The legality is a more germane issue than any controversy about it. Lots of things are 50/50 or controversial and we don't start each Wikipedia article with a statement about the duration of the controversy. Wikidemo (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved from talk page

(not endorsing the following - just better here than there) - Wikidemo (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rational/Logical Challenge to the November 2008 Initiative

Logically, how can the constitution be changed by a vote of the people after the state supreme court has already ruled on the matter with the majority of the legislature's approval? Another thing that doesn't make sense is why should gay marriage be voted upon by a body of voters that consists of a majority of heterosexual voters? Gay marriage is a matter that should be decided upon by those that it specifically is designed to impact - namely, gay men and lesbians. Only those who identify as gay or lesbian should be allowed to vote on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Rationally, if two branches of the government, along with the Governor (the executive branch), have already approved of same-sex marriage in the state of California, does it make sense for the electorate (who elected the officials in the three branches of it's government) to decide to reject the elected officials' opinions? Probably not.

The judiciary, legislature and the executive branches have all said that same-sex marriages are legal and should be considered as part of the law. Why would Californians want to go back to the polls, spending so much more money and time in the process, to vote against all of these legitimate powers' opinions/rulings on the matter? This doesn't appear to be a wise or useful way to spend time or resources. Since the majority of the government has already ruled in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriage, the voters themselves would be saying that it has no confidence in it's government. Thus, if we follow these lines of thought, it would not be unthinkable for the people of California voting in favor of taking away any of the various powers it has already granted it's government. If this happens, then there would be no legitimacy to the powers of California's three branches of government.

Just because some people (a vocal minority) feel that gay marriage is an abomination against nature should not give them the right to thwart the power of the judicial or legislative branches of government. Same-sex marriage is legal and has been ruled constitutional and part of the law of California. It should take a lot more than a ballot initiative to reverse this. At least two-thirds of the California Legislature should be required to vote to allow this ballot initiative to be placed on the 2008 statewide ballot. The voters have a say, yes, but when the Judiciary votes in favor of something, and the Legislature has voted twice in favor of it, the popular vote should not have the final say, because equal protection of the law to protect minorities is essential to civil rights, due process, and fairness in the democratic process in general.

Proposal for adding a link to my contribution on the Talk Page in the Main article

I would like to propose that a hyperlink to my contribution be placed on the main article under the legal challenge to November 2008 initiative section with the following statement: "For ideas about the logical inconsistencies inherent in the November 2008 initiative, please see (link)."

Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesgregg76 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please review WP:5P, and particularly WP:V and WP:NOT for some of our guidelines and policies on content here. In particular, all information is factual summaries of information published in secondary reliable sources. Your contribution is certainly interesting and relevant, but it is more in line with a personal essay and argument about the subject. As such it is not really suitable in its present form, either as article content or a link. If you do look around this article and others, you can get an idea of the tone, content, and citation styles. Hope that helps. Wikidemo (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Would Proposition 8 override the court's decision?

The article currently claims:

Proposition 8, a proposed constitutional amendment (also known as the Limit on Marriage Amendment or California Marriage Protection Act) that would override the Court's decision, will appear on the 2008 California general election ballot.

That is not NPOV, because some opponents of Prop 8 argue that the amendment would not override the court's decision, since it would represent (they argue) a "constitutional revision" rather than a "constitutional amendment", with only the later being eligible for the initiative process under the California constitution (under article 18 section 3). The argument is that to overturn a constitutional clause such as equal protection is such a major change that it constitutes a revision rather than a mere amendment. Now, maybe there argument is right, maybe it is wrong. But it has been made, see e.g. [2]. That argument was the basis of the attempted court challenge to the proposition proceeding. The Supreme Court rejected the challenge, but since they did it without comment, that has basically been taken by most to mean "come back to us if and when the proposition passes" rather than necessarily a rejection of the plantiff's arguments. But, the point is, whichever side is right in this argument, it is not NPOV for Wikipedia to contain a biased one-sided claim like Proposition 8 "would override the Court's decision", since that's something that many disagree with. --SJK (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Gay Couples Status if Struck Down?

The main article does not really go into specifics regarding what would happen to the gay couples who marry before November should the public repeal the gay marriage law. Does anyone know what would happen to those married couples legal status after November if the marriage decision is repealed? The only bit of VAGUE information I could find was in the July 1, 2008 issue of The Advocate under the article "Summer of Love, Winter of Struggle" by Sue Rochman. In it she interviews Joan Hollinger, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law. Hollinger states "Constitutional scholars agree that the amendment cannot be effective retroactively, so anyone married before November would be protected." What does that mean exactly? Does it mean that the privilaged few who were alive during this period and able to get married will always be considered married under the law, but everyone else wanting to after November CAN'T? Or does it mean that those married will then fall under domestic partnership only? How does this effect tax filing? Does anyone know the answer or know of a reference that states an answer? Artemisboy (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

No one knows because it has never happened before. There would undoubtedly be a lawsuit, the outcome of which would answer your question. -Rrius (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

See the two paragraphs and references I've just added to the "Legal challenge to November 2008 initiative" subsection. Jerry Brown thinks any marriages celebrated before November would be unaffected, and he's probably a good judge of the political and legal realities in CA. But as Rrius said, if Prop. 8 passes, the issue would ultimately be decided by a court. Textorus (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

External Links

The link to ""Judicial Usurpation, California Style," by Robert Struble, TeLL, June 2008." does not appear to directly relate to this article - except as an example of a very extreme reaction to judicial opinions that do not agree with the author. It might be more balanced not to have such an extreme link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori tait (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, and I removed it per WP:SOAP --EqualRights (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Proposition 8

I just saw an edit (quickly reverted) which claimed Prop 8 had already passed - it has not. There are still three million absentee ballots to be counted, and the final vote will not be certified for weeks yet.

I propose semi-protection until the vote is finalized.

--75.82.173.229 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Protection just (re) requested. [3] Mike Doughney (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

-- Even though I am against proposition 8, do you seriously think that those three million votes will make a difference? Proposition 8 probably passed and there should at least be a note in the beginning of the article telling people that. Blootix

Ya, I'm probably just holding on with false hope, but ya never know, maybe the 3 million are from San Francisco, LA, and other liberal areas. CTJF83Talk 02:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Current wording of that section seems to make sense, a reasonable compromise - some mild future tense in the first paragraph, the second and third describing current events are lifted from the Prop 8 article as it is right now. The tense can be adjusted as things develop. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly hope that those votes do come from liberal areas. All right I guess I second the semi-protection. Blootix (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Blootix