[Congressman Billybob]

Since it was a state court, deciding on state law (apparently), there's no appeal to the US Supreme Court. The only argument I can see, and it's a stretch, is that the California judges violated the US constitutional guarantee that each state should have a “republican form of government.” That means government by elected representatives, rather than unelected dictators.

John / Billybob

[17th Miss Regt]

Suppose a gay couple gets married in California and moves to a state that does not recognize the marriage. When the gay couple attempts to get a benefit reserved for married couples in the new state, would that not set up a “full faith and credit” fight in the new state? And if so, would the case not have to be resolved at the federal court of appeals level?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Since it was a state court, deciding on state law (apparently), there's no appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Of course one could always appeal to Bush v. Gore, if one were willing to risk a contempt of court citation! LOL

The only argument I can see, and it's a stretch, is that the California judges violated the US constitutional guarantee that each state should have a “republican form of government.” That means government by elected representatives, rather than unelected dictators.

I think that a perfectly valid point - but not one that is likely to be sustained by a court, I suppose . . . since SCOTUS as an institution likes to maintain the fiction that there is no such thing as judicial activism.