Has anyone yet noted that, unlike Massachusetts, there will be no limitation in California on marriages for out-of-state couples? Granted, such marriages won't be recognized in the participants' home states. But they are still free to come to California to tie the knot and get a marriage license, unlike Massachusetts, and no doubt many will. (I am guessing that marriage in California may soon become a rite of passage for gay couples throughout the country.) Thus, California may soon become the gay marriage capital of the country, surely a boon for its tourist industry.

The problem with this is? I can see how the rest of the country may be afraid that they will get married in CA and then come back to their home state and force them to overcome their arrogance to recognize the marriage and legal. Personally this is a good thing. Eventually those that are afraid that allowing a couple to have the same rights as them is not going to result in the end of the world, or even a change in their own life style.

20 some states reject in their state law same sex marriage. Those laws passed with, on average, 75% of the population voting for the ballot item banning same sex marriage.

Now CA is likely to have a ballot item to amend the constitution of CA to define marriage as between two adults of opposite sex.

Considering the CA Supreme Court over ruled a law passed to ban gay marriage it seems the constitutional amendment might pass. I don't think the CA Supreme Court will be able to overturn that as unconstitutional without getting them impeached.

Whatever happens with the ballot initiative, you've got five months when anyone will be able to get married in California. There will be a big influx of couples coming here to get their marriage licenses. And if the ballot initiative fails, California will continue to be the place for gay couples to come to get their relationships validated. It will become a little cottage industry for California. Again, I haven't seen anyone in the press pointing out this feature of California law that is going to make it different from Massachusetts.

But I hear the sponsors of the ballot initiative are asking for a 5 month injunction (until the ballot item is voted on).

They are going to ask the court for a stay of its ruling until after the ballot initiative. However, it's unlikely that that will happen. For one thing, the ruling is much broader than just the issue of the use of the word "marriage" -- it recognizes gays as a protected class for equal protection purposes. In some cases, a court will stay its decision to give a legislature time to fix a statute to comply with whatever constitutional defect it has. I just don't see that happening in this case. They are more likely to say, if the voters vote to make that part of the opinion moot, so be it, but that is not sufficient reason for us to stay the opinion.

Can one part of the state constitution cancel out another? The California state constitution guarantees the right to marriage to all citizens. It also guarantees equal protection under the law which is why the state supreme court said that any law against gay marriage clearly violated both of those amendments. If an amendment is passed that outlaws gay marriage won't the constitution be in conflict with itself? Wouldn't it say: all citizens have the right to get married and all have the same rights....except for you gays. That is so illogical I can't imagine it working.

TJA:

Yes, one part of the constitution can cancel out another. That's not a conflict. The latest past amendment has precedence. Check out the 18th and 21st ammendments to the US consitution to see an obvious example.

I am somewhat baffled that you are actually confused by this. No wonder we have a representational government, it appears the layman cannot comprehend even the simplest of constitutional concepts, even when there are well known historical examples already in place.