Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Lil Wayne: 2012 Libertarian Candidate For President Previous entry: The pains of being “fair and balanced”

CA: Out-of-state same-sex marriages prior to enactment of Prop 8 to be recognized as of Jan. 1

Legal IssuesLGBT

While the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed IN California were upheld as legal, there was no clarity for quite some time about whether the Golden State would recognize legal same-sex unions performed outside of its boundaries.

Senate Bill 54 was signed by the Governator last month recognizing any same-sex marriages performed before Prop 8 took effect, and the law goes into effect January 1, 2010.

When California’s Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed into law last month legislation recognizing some same-sex marriages performed out of state, the state’s Director of the Department of Social Services learned he would regain his legal status as a married man in January.

So will his husband.

CDSS Director John A. Wagner will be the highest-ranking, openly gay, legally married administration official.

The legislation, Senate Bill 54, clarifies that same-sex couples who married outside of California before Proposition 8 went into effect November 5, 2008, are recognized as married spouses by the state of California. It was authored by openly gay state Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).

One other positive benefit of this legislation is that enumerates that any legal same-sex marriages performed outside of the state after November 5, 2008 must receive the same benefits as civil marriage, but it cannot be called “marriage.”

In the end, this is the best that can be done with the tortuous mess of patchwork “equality” that exists at the state level that tugs again on the unconstitutional truth that a civil marriage license must be portable from state to state, just like your driver’s license. And that means the long and winding legal road to a SCOTUS that will do the right thing. Of course the current composition of the Court doesn’t make anyone feel confident about that.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 11:36 AM • (24) Comments

Senate Bill 54 was signed by the Governator last month recognizing any same-sex marriages performed before Prop 8 took effect, and the law goes into effect January 1, 2010.

While that is good for people like Pam and her wife, it is bad for populists, because it allows the Legislature to overturn an initiative statute. Over a century ago, when the Legislature was in the pocket of the railroads and the trusts (see The Octopus), the California constitution was amended to let the citizens overrule the special interests, by means of the Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall. In 2000, however unwisely and unjustly, the electorate voted not to recognize same-sex marriages (which at the time, could only be contracted out of state), and now their will has been overturned.

Comment #1: Hector B.  on  12/22  at  12:04 PM

The bill and system that legalizes my marriage in CA is seriously flawed, because it does affirm the “mob rule” over the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples by the passage of Prop 8. California’s initiative systems has bred institutional chaos.

Comment #2: Pam Spaulding  on  12/22  at  12:10 PM

The current composition does not make me confident that they (as a group) consider personal civil rights a real and important interest of the court, not unless it applies only to certain people, no matter the Bill of Rights and it’s pesky little add ons.

Comment #3: helen w. h.  on  12/22  at  12:17 PM

It is for SCOTUS appointments and Federal judgeships that we should choose our Presidents, more than almost anything else.

Comment #4: Dr. Psycho  on  12/22  at  12:33 PM

The bill and system that legalizes my marriage in CA is seriously flawed, because it does affirm the “mob rule” over the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples by the passage of Prop 8. California’s initiative systems has bred institutional chaos.

:-p The California initiative system has been an absolute train wreck.  I can’t think of a single piece of legislation that has emerged from that mess that wasn’t a travesty of some sort.

I mean, to a degree, Democracy is always going to be about mob rule.  If you’ve got a society of 10 guys, and 9 of them want to beat up on the 10th, there’s no legal system in the world that will save the last dude.  That said, I think the Prop 8 vote’s 51/49 split resulting in a massive roll-back of civil rights is the absolute textbook definition of Tyranny of the (Slim) Majority.

I can’t imagine how California is going to survive the next ten years without a massive overhaul of the state Constitution.

Comment #5: Zifnab  on  12/22  at  12:51 PM

There’s a 3-day (I think) wait between license and ceremony in Iowa—so there may be enough time to get married here in beautiful—gay friendly!—Iowa City, Iowa.  Because of various provisions of our constitution, no matter how successful the republicans are, it would be many years before a change to our constitution could enforce oppressive marriage definitions, and by that time, I do believe that public opinion will be in favor of continued equal marriage rights.

Comment #6: elisabeth51  on  12/22  at  01:29 PM

Good to hear.  However, the one thing this law does is shine a light on just how ridiculous a situation the same-sex marriage opponents have created…


Married in CA before May 2008 in non-civil ceremony?
You lose.

Married in CA after November 5, 2008 in non-civil ceremony?
You lose.

Married in CA between May 2008 - November 2008?
You WIN!

Married outside CA after November 5, 2008?
Halfsies!

Married outside CA before November 5, 2008?
Winner!!


None of that is meant to be an indictment against any of the couples who will be affected… rather it’s pointing out the asshattery of the fundie dorks who have now managed to create a whole bunch of different classes of people whose marriages will either be recognized, not recognized, or halfway recognized, all contingent on where and when they got married.

Which is just ridoculous.  Every single one of these couples should be legally recognized with full rights.

Comment #7: DTG in STL  on  12/22  at  02:58 PM

@DTG

Not quite so blunt as you paint it. If you were married in California before November 2008, you still had the option of a civilly recognized Domestic Partnership, which (while it sucks) still grants all the state benefits (which are all that the married people are getting.)  There was a civil recognition option available at the time.

Similarly, since Domestic Partnerships did not automatically upgrade to marriage, anyone in California during the marriage window who had a non-civil marriage or an existing domestic partnership had a mechanism to marry. Yes, it had a cost associated with it, and shouldn’t have - there should have been a free upgrade (license fee waived) for anyone in a Domestic Partnership.

Someone help me out, but with DOMA in place, what rights do married gay couples have in California that Domestic Partners don’t?

Yes it sucks, and yes, it is wrong. But my husband and I got on a plane and went to California to get married during the window, with NO benefits or recognition back home. Knowing that Prop 8 was looming, I don’t understand people who didn’t make use of the option while they had it.

Comment #8: Lymis  on  12/22  at  03:14 PM

corwin:

I don’t think California is going to survive. But, it’s fun watching the train wreck.

OK, I’ll make you a bet. Let’s get together and write a $10 million whole-life policy on you, with me as the beneficiary. You pay the premiums. If you miss a payment, invalidate the policy by violating its terms, or die before California ceases to exist as a legal entity, I get the payout. If California kicks the bucket before you do, you get it.

Put your money where your mouth is or shut the fuck up.

Comment #9: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  12/22  at  06:32 PM

Put your money where your mouth is or shut the fuck up.

That doesn’t make any sense.  Shouldn’t you split the premiums?  If California kicks the bucket before he does, I don’t think the insurance plan will pay out until he kicks the bucket, too.

If you actually wanted to have some fun with this, maybe he could short-sell you some California municipal bonds.  And if the state doesn’t go belly up bankrupt, you win.

Seriously, though.  That state is dicked.

Comment #10: Zifnab  on  12/22  at  06:40 PM

<bblockquote>Seriously, though.  That state is dicked.</blockquote>

That’s true, but there’s a big difference between a state facing massive financial problems and a state that is on the verge of no longer existing.

I think Dan was criticizing corwin’s supremely hyperbolic assertion that California “would not survive”, which generally means that it will “cease to exist”, which is ridiculous on its face.

I mean… how exactly do you go about making a state (not to mention, the largest state in the country, and one of the world’s largest economies) not exist anymore, anyway?

Comment #11: DTG in STL  on  12/22  at  07:10 PM

That’s true, but there’s a big difference between a state facing massive financial problems and a state that is on the verge of no longer existing.

I think the state defaulting on its debts would be the functional equivalent of being “dead”.  Once a government can no longer pay out money for services, it is effectively nullified.  Anything it should have the power to do would require cash it can’t spend.

There are a couple of other options - splitting the state into several smaller states, like Texas is allowed to, or going really crazy and having it turned back into a territory - but I think the most likely ‘termination’ would be bankruptcy.

That’s why I’d suggesting putting the bet in the form of municipal bonds.

Comment #12: Zifnab  on  12/22  at  07:24 PM

”splitting the state into several smaller states, like Texas is allowed to …”

Read it and weep Article 4 Section 3 of the Constitution of the United Stares:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

I guess Texas aint so special after all

Comment #13: jefft452  on  12/22  at  08:21 PM

oops
United States not United Stares

Comment #14: jefft452  on  12/22  at  08:22 PM

More on topic to the post is Section 1:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

But since I’m not a “strict constructionist” I cant read the parts written in invisible ink that show the “original intent” excluded marriage certificates from public acts, records, and judicial proceedings

Comment #15: jefft452  on  12/22  at  08:38 PM

For the within-california stuff, isn’t this just the legislature saying what the court already said?

Comment #16: paul  on  12/22  at  10:31 PM

Why the hell is California’s economy coming into play in a thread about California’s half-assed compromises on marriage equality?
Unless it’s just to say that our system makes it easier to create a semi-functional civil-union/marriage combination than to get taxes we desperately need.

If you don’t live in California, btw, fuck off about our economy. It’s not your problem and those of us ready to have screaming fits over the supermajority crap do not need to be pushed.

Comment #17: Samantha Vimes  on  12/22  at  10:45 PM

Civil rights, otoh, are everyone’s business. Because it’s human rights.

Comment #18: Samantha Vimes  on  12/22  at  10:46 PM

I think the state defaulting on its debts would be the functional equivalent of being “dead”.  Once a government can no longer pay out money for services, it is effectively nullified.  Anything it should have the power to do would require cash it can’t spend.

Fair enough.  But I’m pretty sure the United States Federal Government (which is allowed to operate on deficit) would bail California out before things get to that point.

That they haven’t yet indicates to me that they are still a long way from being at the point you describe.

I just can’t see the Fed allowing a state that huge to fail.  One out of every nine American citizens is also a Californian.

Comment #19: DTG in STL  on  12/22  at  11:51 PM

Er, pardon the grouchiness of my first comment.
It’s just been very painful to watch the consequences of our state budget mess. (Actually, our economy, in its essentials isn’t so bad. We’ve got agriculture, we’ve got tech, we’ve got manufacturing, we’ve got science—but without money for the government, we’re in trouble). I have friends who are losing income because of it. My husband has had jobs he was being considered for concelled because there was no budget for it.

So hearing someone apparently gleefully talking about California—a state containing over 10% of the population of the entire US—ceasing to exist, really hit a nerve.

Comment #20: Samantha Vimes  on  12/23  at  12:21 AM

We can take away people’s rights, and amend the constitution with 51%, but we can’t pass the annual budget.

Comment #21: Crissa  on  12/23  at  05:55 AM

Hector B.,

It isn’t inconsistent with Prop. 8, it is deciding what to do with marriages that were performed in other states during the same brief period that same-sex marriage was legal in California.  Prop. 8 was not (and could not be) retroactive, and so did not cover that.

jefft452,

What you said turned up to eleven.  Some states don’t recognize cousin marriage, or marriage of persons of a certain age, but when someone validly married in another state who couldn’t be legally married in their state moves there, the marriage is still valid.  So same-sex marriages performed in any other state should be legitimate at least in other states.  I think the same is true for the feds., but I haven’t looked into that in a while.

Comment #22: Ismone  on  12/23  at  04:26 PM

Ismone, I’m sorry for being unclear. It was Prop 22 that invalidated out-of-state SSM. The Cal. Supreme Court found it was incompatible with the Cal constitution. Later that year, Prop 8 amended the constitution to take gays’ rights away.

Comment #23: Hector B.  on  12/27  at  01:44 AM

http://www.allbyer.com
Hi,Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,Here are the most popular, most stylish and avant-garde shoes,handbags,Tshirts, jacket,Tracksuit w ect…Nike Air Jordan(1-25)/Jordan Six Ring/Jordan Fusion/Nike Shox/Air Max/AF1/Dunk: $32
Polo/Ed Hardy/Lacoste/Ca/A&F;……T-shirt: Coach /Gucci/Lv/Ed Hardy/D&G;/Fendi ……Handbag:$35
Christian Louboutin/Lv/Ed Hardy/Gucci/Coach/Lacoste/ Timbland……Shoe :$35 True Religion/Coogi/Evisu/Ed Hardy/Prada ……Jeans:$30
New era/Gucci/Ed hardy ……cap : $13 Okely/Coach/D&G;/Fendi/Gucci/Armani ……sunglass : $15 Nike shoes: 32 $, True Religion jeans: 30 $, Ed Hardy, t-shirts: 12 $, NFL Jersey: 20 $, Boots UGG: 50… For details, please consult http://www.allbyer.com  &^%*56uy5u

Comment #24: Knox1986  on  12/28  at  12:20 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.