Prop 8 and the Supreme Court.

No, states that have same-sex marriage will continue to. If Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional only California will not have same-sex marriage. That said, such a ruling will make it harder to fight for same-sex marriage in the courts.

 

Actually, if the Court rules Prop 8 unconstitutional it won't make same sex marriage legal in the entire country. Here is some recent news about Prop 8 and the Supreme Court U.S. Supreme Court delays decision on Proposition 8 appeal – LGBTQ Nation

I believe you have it backwards. If Prop 8 is constitutional then there is no same sex marriage. During the election, yes on Prop 8 meant no to same sex marriage

 

Some legal experts have predicted that Supreme Court will simply not accept the case (yup, it can do that). If that happens, the earlier ruling from the 9th circuit will hold and California can resume same sex marriages.

 

As I understand it, the question is essentially this:
"Does the (federal) constitution allow for a (federal or state) constitutional ban on same-sex marriage?"

Two possible outcomes:

a) If the supreme court rules it is constitutional, that means states are allowed to ban it. Allowing to ban is not the same as obliging to ban, so states are still free to allow it and to continue allowing it. Nothing much changes to the situation as is.

b) If the supreme court rules it unconstitutional, no state may have such a ban in their constitution. All states constitutionally banning same-sex marriage would be obliged to scrap that ban from their constitutions. They would still not be obliged to pass laws to allow or facilitate it.



Speculation about effects:

Obviously, in case a), there'll be people lobbying for a federal constitutional amendment to ban it. Political reality being what it is, I don't see any chance of that actually passing, but it'd still be annoying. Some states might still move forward on banning it locally and get away with it. Essentially, the issue is put off until the next generation is left wondering what the previous generation was smoking.

In case b) I can see legal battles erupting all across the country, as same-sex couples start arguing that if you can't ban it, you need to allow it, and make provisions for allowing it everywhere. Still a long, drawn-out battle, but one that will end up (I think) in some states allowing it, if only grudgingly.


But I'm not a lawyer, so anyone should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what I got from this is it was passed and then repealed and now is trying to be passed again. It changes the California State constitution so that marriage is between a man and a woman only. I hope it is decided to be unconstitutional again...

 

The brief history is that Proposition 8 was passed banning same-sex marriage in California. (Why the fuck can simple majorities amend any constitution?)

The Supreme Court of the State of California held that Proposition 8 was not constitutional. Proponents appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the State of California. Proponents are now asking the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the Ninth Circuit.

If that were to happen, it would crush the judicial strategy, because the Court would almost certainly uphold it because it does not discriminate against LGBT people, or that even if it does, it advances a legitimate state interest and is rationally related to that interest.

 

The Supreme Court has never held that LGBT people are protected under the constitution. They have in fact specifically stated before that the fourteenth amendment and title vii of the equal protection act do not require equal protection for people on the basis of sexual orientation. I think that there is a very real possibility that the Supreme Court will uphold prop 8. I would rather they just didn't take the case.