Apparently, the minority decision stated that this decision should be left up to the citizens... but why can't the decision be appealed to a higher court? The Supreme Court still has jurisdiction, doesn't it? For example: Brown v. Board dealt with a state's educational system, which wasn't a federal issue

And that's a pretty scary thought; I believe the law that was struck down was brought about by a referendum, although California probably grew a little more liberal since the referendum was taken. Although it's also interesting that the majority of the members of the CA Supreme Court were Republican nominees...

Its not a federal issue, and none of the candidates want it to be a federal issue.

edit: I would love to see somone do a study of the cost of marriage to the state, and then propose removing marriage as an institution as a mean to solving the state budget problems. Man, that would be awesome.

I believe because there's no legal reason for it to be taken to a higher Court. It does not breach the Federal constitution-- there is nothing in the Federal constitution for or against this. The question was, specifically, whether or not the California state law (enacted by referendum) was constitutional by California's constitution. The California Supreme Court is the final arbiter in this scenario. For it to move up, there will need to be something that makes it a Federal issue.

They were discussing the following scenario: If the voters of California make a constitutional amendment banning this, then the proponents can file a lawsuit saying that the California constitution's amendment is against the Federal constitution. At this point, it will then (most likely) go all the way to the Supreme Court.

I might be naive, but I don't think the demographics of California has changed much in the past 8 years.

Also, I think both sides are too scared to bring it up to the supreme court level.

//teh massive derail

My understanding is the state's budget problems are in part due to Proposition 13, which amened CA's constitution so that property tax rates in the state are capped. I think (not sure) that this restriction is not in place in other states, allowing them to draw off this source of funding.

Not that we need another reason for property in california to be higher though.

//

.... Dag dag dag

Actually I believe the problem is that the economy is shot to hell, businesses have left california due to the price of living being so high (aka wages are higher) property values have declined 30% and the state has mandatory spending increases.

But it would be great to blame it all on marriage and see what happens!

But those factors (with exceptions of buisnesses leaving california) apply to all states. I was talking about the ability of the California gov to draw on resources vs what is available to other state legislatures.

Anyway good arguing with you Dag. Go pour one out this weekend.

Hey, look what happens when you leave a thread.

1) France uses common law, like most of the non-Islamic civilized world. Their system might seem strange to us, but our legal system is really an oddity of the English speaking world. We're the weirdos. Although, now that I have more time to look things up, I can tell you that same-sex marriage is illegal there, and there aren't any extra rights granted by virtue of family or birth (not that I'm sure where you got that anyways).

2) The US Supreme Court won't hear this case. They would only step in if a state law is felt to be unconstitutional by federal standards. They will never reverse a ruling made based on a state constitution, because that isn't their jurisdiction. The circuit courts can't, plain and simple. There's no recourse in the legal system for reinstating the law.

Monarchies and inheritance rights.

i.e. I was basically saying that its an archaic institution which once actually served an important function for governments.

Sort of how you often see Achaean culture of guilds creep into Lusternia guild policies.

No country that I know of at this point is entirely hands off when it comes to marriage.

Canada recognizes the British monarchy, and America has inheritance rights. I'd drop that one while you're ahead.

Uh dag...um I think the issue of monarchy was decided in 1776 here. And driven home in 1812.

Only rights I could think that are granted by birth ... is possibly diplomatic immunity to kids of a diplomat. Not sure...

someone save me from California :'(