martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 83,049
- 34,363
- 2,300
have you even looked up the legal definition of marriage in california? nowhere in california law does it state that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. i challenge you to find the exact legal text where is says so.
on the other hand there is exact legal text that define adult.
per the California State Constitution:
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 6500-6502
6500. A minor is an individual who is under 18 years of age. The
period of minority is calculated from the first minute of the day on
which the individual is born to the same minute of the corresponding
day completing the period of minority.
6501. An adult is an individual who is 18 years of age or older.
now the California state constitution, used to read that marriage was only "recognized" as a union between a man and woman. but the California State supreme court struck this clause down as unconstitutional.
"The 4-3 ruling declared that the state Constitution protects a fundamental "right to marry" that extends equally to same-sex couples. It tossed a highly emotional issue into the election year while opening the way for tens of thousands of gay people to wed in California, starting as early as mid-June.
The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard."
then judge walker who was appointed by then governor Ronald Reagan struck down prop 8 under the equal protection and due process clause stating the following:
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples," Walker, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his opinion.
"Race restrictions on marital partners were once common in most states but are now seen as archaic, shameful or even bizarre," he added. "Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.""
and the challenge to the natural born citizens clause could also be brought into court under the equal protection and due process clause. it could simply be changed to read that the president need to be a "citizen" of the united state. thus being a naturalized citizen would qualify. im not saying that they would win this argument, but it would certainly be able to be challenged in a court of law. tell me the basis of the law that requires a president to be "natural born?"
You got your order screwed up.
Proposition 8 was IN RESPONSE to the In Re Marriage Cases judgement, not overruled by it. The California Supreme courts review of proposition 8 was only to see if proper procedures were followed, not if its content was within the state constitution.
In re Marriage Cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also note in the first few paragraphs that the article shows wording that marriage is bewtween a man and a woman in the california marriage code.
i apologize you are correct in the timeline. as Prop 8 was in response to the Re Marriage Case.
although i am correct in that marriage was never defined by "law". Prop 22 was a statute:
"The Act (Prop 22) added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Because the Act was an ordinary statute, it could be struck down if it were inconsistent with the state constitution. This occurred on May 15 when the state supreme court, ruling on In re Marriage Cases, declared that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry"
Laws can be struck down as unconstitutional as well.
I am sure older marriage codes/laws/statues whatever merely referred to the parties as husband and wife, and when they were written is was implied and known that meant man and women. The recent additions to the codes of those words are in response to same sex couples trying to marry, but the original intent was always 1 man, 1 woman.