I don’t speak lawyerese—can someone translate this ruling into plain basic English? Will this now go up to the SCOTUS?
Key sentence:
“...we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.”
Earlier they also stated that this conclusion states that the initiative process cannot be used to change any laws challenging this subject.
Of course the AG could still choose to end the official use of the word “marriage” and all such unions would then be properly called domestic partnerships; maybe that would restart the circus.
“I don’t speak lawyerese—can someone translate this ruling into plain basic English?”
Corrigan explained it pretty well in her concurring and dissentin opinion:
The voters who passed Proposition 22 not long ago decided to keep the meaning of marriage as it has always been understood in California. The majority improperly infringes on the prerogative of the voters by overriding their decision.
It does that which it acknowledges it should not do: it redefines marriage because it believes marriage should be redefined. (See maj. opn., ante, at pp. 4-5, 109.) It justifies its decision by finding a constitutional infirmity where none exists.
Plaintiffs are free to take their case to the people, to let them vote on whether they are now ready to accept such a redefinition. Californians have legalized domestic partnership, but decided not to call it “marriage.” Four votes on this court should not disturb the balance reached by the democratic process, a balance that is still being tested in the political arena.
Nope.