Stile writes:
quote:
What, exactly does this mean?
It means that there is a federal court case concerning a state issue.
In the US, there is the state judicial system and the federal judicial system. States have their own laws and constitutions and in general, the federal system stays out of it. There are some points, however, where federal jurisdiction has a say regarding state matters.
For example, the contract of marriage is governed by the states. Each state has their own laws regarding who can and cannot get married. However, those restrictions must be in accordance with the US Constitution. That is why state restrictions regarding interracial marriage were struck down in the Loving v. Virginia case:
In the 60s, the Loving couple (yes, the last name was "Loving") lived in Virginia which had laws preventing a white and black couple from getting married. They went to Washington, DC (right next door) and got married there because DC did not have such restrictions. When they went back to Virginia, they were arrested.
This resulted in a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court where, in a unanimous decision, it was decided that restricting marriage on the basis of race was a violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution which requires equal treatment under the law.
While states have the ability to regulate certain aspects of marriage such as residency requirements, age restrictions, blood relationships, etc., but restriction on the basis of race is in violation of the Constitution.
In this case, California voted to amend its constitution to define marriage as between only mixed-sex couples. This law is being fought in federal court as a violation of US Constitutional principles.
A similar example happened in the 90s regarding Colorado. They had voted to amend the state constitution to disallow any laws that provide redress for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This was taken to the US Supreme Court where it was decided that this was a violation of the 14th Amendment right to equal treatment under the law: Gay people need to be able to petition the court for redress of grievances.
This is in contrast to what happened in Hawaii in the 90s regarding same-sex marriage. At the time, the statutes regarding marriage in Hawaii did not mention the sex of the participants. Too, the Hawaii constitution specifically mentions equality on the basis of sex. Thus, a lawsuit was filed on the basis that the refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples was a violation of the Hawaii constitution.
The decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court could not be taken to the US Supreme Court because the rights involved were unique to the Hawaii Constitution. There is nothing in the US Constitution regarding equality on the basis of sex. The 14th Amendment simply refers to "citizens." If the HSC had determined that restricting marriage to mixed-sex couples was a violation of the Hawaii Constitution, there is nothing in the US Constitution to deny that and thus, no federal case.
With Prop 8, however, the claim is that the restriction of marriage to mixed-sex couples is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
quote:
If the gay-side wins... then Proposition 8 would be immediately repealed (gays would be able to marry in San Franciso)?
On the most simplistic basis, yes. If the federal court rules that Prop 8 violates the US Constitution, then it will be repealed. Given that the previous ruling by the California Supreme Court was that marriage cannot be denied to same-sex couples, that would mean there would be equality in marriage in California.
quote:
Regardless of which side wins... how likely is it that things will move to the Supreme Court next?
This is why I said "simplistic" above. No matter what the current court rules, it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
quote:
Any ballpark figures on how long that would be?
That depends upon other trials. There is also a case in New Jersey regarding same-sex marriage. In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that denial of legal recognition of same-sex partnerships was unconstitutional. They left it to the legislature to decide how to handle it. The New Jersey Legislature then created "civil unions," attempting to do the "separate but equal" route. It seems that the legal contract created for same-sex couples is not equal to marriage (big surprise). Thus, the NJSC is hearing a new case that the NJL dropped the ball and that the only remedy is full marriage.
The US Supreme Court may want to wait for the outcomes of the various trials so that it can combine them all into a single argument. This way, they only have to have a single ruling.
quote:
Or is this court already not really looking at the important aspects?
This is a question of philosophy. Whatever the court says is what they're looking at will be "important." We may consider such questions to be ridiculous, but the court clearly doesn't and wants to hear arguments on those questions.
In the Hawaii case, the question of the raising of children was brought up. However, the State's own witnesses (the State was defending the banning of marriage to same-sex couples) all said that there wasn't any evidence to support the claim of harm to children. The federal court apparently wants to run through it again.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2