CA court upholds gay marriage ruling

June 4, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Gay marriage will be allowed in California – for now. The California Supreme Court released an order today denying requests to stay its decision to legalize gay marriages until after the November 2008 election. The split court voted 4-3 to allow for the marriages to become legal starting at 5 p.m. June 16.

Noteworthy is a proposition qualified Monday to be added to the November election allowing voters to choose whether to limit marriage to a man and woman through a constitutional amendment, according to the California Secretary of State’s Web site. The proposition would also only allow for recognition of opposite-sex couples. Last month, New York Gov. David Patterson announced that same-sex unions from other states will be recognized by his state. Gay marriage has been a hot political topic in the past few years throughout the country, including in Indiana. Will the decisions by the California Supreme Court and New York governor have any impact on other states mulling gay marriage legislation or amendments? What happens to those same-sex couples who get married in California between June 16 and the November election if the residents of California vote to add the amendment to their state constitution? Will their marriages still be legal in California and other states that recognize gay marriage?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT