Talk:In re Marriage Cases

Final on June 16, unless stayed on final appeal to USA S.Court
With bated breath, the 4,000 defiant of the law, and many other are too excited and would mob City Hall on June 16, unless, the USA S. Court stays: Note that the CA ruling is 4-3 or a split decision. Hence, anything goes on June 16: In a one-page Resolution, the California Supreme Court on June 4, 2008 forthwith denied all petitions for rehearing and to reconsider the May 15 ruling, as it removed the final obstacle to same-sex marriages starting on June 17. It further rejected moves to delay enforcement of the decision until after the November election, when voters will decide whether to reinstate a ban on same-sex nuptials. Chief Justice Ronald George and Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno, voted for the resolution, while dissenting or voting to reconsider the judgment, were Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan.chicagotribune.com, Calif. court refuses to stall gay marriageThe judgment stated: “The decision filed on May 15, 2008, will become final on June 16, 2008, at 5 p.m.” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that marriages would be held “5:01” on June 16.nytimes.com,  Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriageslatimes.com, California Supreme Court refuses to delay gay marriage Moreover, a field poll in late May, reported that "51% of registered voters in the state favored the right of same-sex couples to marry, with 42 percent opposed.".nytimes.com,  Court Won’t Delay Same-Sex Marriages--Florentino floro (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The ruling is based on the CA Constitution and therefore cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court. Agnosticaphid (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Critisism of judicial activism
These arguements are frequently raised, and should be mentioned in the article.Ragazz (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In articles about same-sex marriage generally, same-sex marriage in the United States, or opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States, yes, those arguments have a place. That quotation is more about the political debate about same-sex marriage and judges generally, not this case in particular.


 * Anyway, the argument is outlined in the section for the dissenting judges' views. Many people disagreed with Lawrence v. Texas when it came out, as with any court case where there are conservatives versus liberals. Both are represented in the courts, and justices generally do and did outline their parties' respective talking points in the legal arguments. His male lover (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Activist judges" were a major reason given by the Prop 8 camp, as well as president at the time GWB against the ruling.

Furthermore, the judicial branch over-stepping its authority is NOT a partisan Liberal/Conservative issue (Alberto Gonzales, etc).

Critisism of the court's desicion should be included in this article as per WP:CONTROVERSYRagazz (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you're confusing general criticism of same-sex marriage with this specific case. George W. Bush did not speak about Proposition 8 when he was president. His great big speech was in 2004 and in 2006, when he pushed for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned same-sex marriage and civil unions nationwide, because he was afraid that "activist judges" would overturn DOMA, or that at least when they did, there would be enough support for the FMA.


 * Proposition 8 was most certainly not about rolling back a single ruling. As if you read the Proposition 8 (2008) article you will see that supporters argued about "teaching kids in elementary school gay marriage is okay", "redefine marriage for everybody else", etc. The argument against judicial overreach of the legislative branch doesn't even make sense because the amendment, unlike Hawaii's unique constitutional amendment, does not permit the legislature the okay same-sex marriage. Why? Because same-sex marriage passed the legislature two times, reflecting public polling at the time that a majority favored same-sex marriage.


 * Lastly, yes, the term "judicial activism" is a very partisan term. Opponents (conservatives) of Brown v. Board called it judicial activism. Opponents (liberals) of Gonzales v. Carhart called that judicial activism. The only criteria for 'activism', it seems, is that the ruling is one that you don't like, because there are many different schools of how to apply the law; there is no universal neutral standard.


 * To summarize


 * 1) Proposition 8 was an annual ballot proposition that may have gotten increased media attention because of the case, but was not a direct result of the case. Furthermore, it did not affect many precedents established by the case, such as strict scrutiny on sexual orientation, and retroactive marriages.
 * 2) The argument about judicial overreach was not a major component of that campaign, because the legislature and public opinion favored same-sex marriage. The argument also reached its zenith a long time ago, as now a majority of states have reached marriage gender neutrality by legislative means, not judicial.
 * 3) Always in any nontrivial case, there are accusations of judicial activism, and at the beginning of each ruling the judges explain why they have the authority that they do and how they choose to wield it. His male lover (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong about GWB. I distictly remember him using the talking point "Activst judges in California" over and over. Furthermore, Yes on 8 commercials constantly repeated the phrase "activist judges." It WAS a major component of the campaign, as illustrated by its inclusion on the Yes on 8 website. And the argument does apply to California because a mojority DID NOT favor same-sex marriage, as illustrated by the Prop 8 election results.Ragazz (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on In re Marriage Cases. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706105542/http://www.jurisprudence.com.au/juris6/kupka.pdf to http://www.jurisprudence.com.au/juris6/kupka.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)