Ninth Circuit rules Prop 8 unconstitutional.

[Torie]

The reasoning of the court seems to be that when the state awards the moniker "marriage" to a status,  that cannot be taken away absent changing the substantive basket of rights and duties along with the name change. But just taking away the name once conferred, and no more, is simply not rational, and meant to demean, and therefore violates some fundamental right violative of the Equal Protection clause because it's simply unadorned gay bashing (but somehow it wouldn't be if the rights attending civil unions were made lesser than that of "marriage" - I guess because Reinhardt wanted a "narrow" even if moronic decision).

I suspect SCOTUS will grant cert., and reverse. It is a pathetically weak line of reasoning - yet the result even if based on narrow facts, has national implications, as married gays in CA spread out across the fruited plain.

I appreciate Bacon King mentioning Romer, and it is true Prop 8 would have been better worded to say that nothing in the CA Constitution protects the right of same sex couples to have their civil union called "marriage," and simply overturn the CA Supreme court decision to the contrary, rather than to take away the power of the state to pass a statute conferring the moniker "marriage" on gay civil unions.  But Romer was based on taking away the option of localities to pass anti-discrimination laws in favor of gays.  I don't think Kennedy will view a fight over the moniker game, that arose in the first instance from CA SCOTUS judicial activism, in the same light has singling out gays as a class ineligible to seek local anti-discrimination laws in their favor, while any other group can.

[Torie]

I'm starting to wonder whether milhouse's next claim will be that ICE officials will have to watch as the couple consummates the marriage -- just, you know, to be absolutely sure.

That was often the way it was often done with royalty. We don't want any stray sperm, you know. So there is precedent.