![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsPage 36 of the ruling:
Is everyone clear on what happened here? The California Supreme Court is basically saying that their 4-3 ruling granting same sex couples the exact same rights as married couples, without any of the exceptions carved out in Assembly Bill 205, stands as a matter of law. Homosexual couples are entitled to absolutely all of the benefits and rights as heterosexual couples, without fail.
They just can't use the word "marriage" on the license creating "officially recognized family relationships." They can say "husband." They can say "wife." They can say "family." They get absolutely every right granted a married couple under California law. No exceptions.
It's kinda weird, too, the court enshrining proscriptive dictionary meaning. I thought only the UK did stuff like that.
This time the court, clearly irked to have to deal with this issue a second time, issued their ruling 7-0. This is a rebuke to the proposition 8 supporters, and a warning. Even the three justices who disagreed with in re Marriage Cases don't like having their constitution messed with and their court's judgement overturned.
I've seen this analysis several times on the 'net today, and it seems to come back to Seneca Dione's website at KOS. It looks like a solid analysis of the ruling of law as handed down by the Supreme Court. Straight people have marriages called "marriage"; gay people have marriages called "ORFRs" (until otherwise revised). There is no legal distinction between the two in a court of law, and the supporters of proposition 8 will just have to live with that.
Insofar as the majority opinion in that case holds that limiting the designation of "marriage" to the relationship entered into by opposite-sex couples constitutes an impermissible impingement upon the state constitutional rights of privacy and due process, the language of article I, section 7.5, on its face, does not purport to alter or affect the more general holding in in re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, enjoy the constitutional right, under the privacy and due process clauses of the California Constitution, to establish an officially recognized family relationship. Proposition 8 reasonably must be interpreted in a limited fashion as eliminating only the right of same-sex couples to equal access to the designation of marriage, and as not otherwise affecting the constitutional right of those couples to establish an officially recognized family relationship.[Final emphasis mine]
Is everyone clear on what happened here? The California Supreme Court is basically saying that their 4-3 ruling granting same sex couples the exact same rights as married couples, without any of the exceptions carved out in Assembly Bill 205, stands as a matter of law. Homosexual couples are entitled to absolutely all of the benefits and rights as heterosexual couples, without fail.
They just can't use the word "marriage" on the license creating "officially recognized family relationships." They can say "husband." They can say "wife." They can say "family." They get absolutely every right granted a married couple under California law. No exceptions.
It's kinda weird, too, the court enshrining proscriptive dictionary meaning. I thought only the UK did stuff like that.
This time the court, clearly irked to have to deal with this issue a second time, issued their ruling 7-0. This is a rebuke to the proposition 8 supporters, and a warning. Even the three justices who disagreed with in re Marriage Cases don't like having their constitution messed with and their court's judgement overturned.
I've seen this analysis several times on the 'net today, and it seems to come back to Seneca Dione's website at KOS. It looks like a solid analysis of the ruling of law as handed down by the Supreme Court. Straight people have marriages called "marriage"; gay people have marriages called "ORFRs" (until otherwise revised). There is no legal distinction between the two in a court of law, and the supporters of proposition 8 will just have to live with that.
