The big news: the California Supreme Court has junked Proposition 22. From NYT
The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
The court’s 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling six decades ago that struck down the state’s ban on interracial marriage, would make California only the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages.
I haven't had time to read the full opinion, but it seems to be pretty well constructed. The dissents, on the other hand . . .
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the majority should have deferred to the state Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage, particularly given the increased legal protections for same-sex couples enacted in recent years.
“But a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter wrote, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the people themselves.”
Given the history of same-sex marriage legislation in California, the dissent by Justice Baxter is rather ludicrous:
In case you've forgotten, the state legislature has twice passed bills legalizing same-sex marriage, which the Governator has vetoed on the grounds that the courts should decide the issue. We seem to have tag-team buck-passing here. And it leads me to think that Justice Baxter is really grasping at straws.
Also dissenting, Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But she said the courts should allow the political process to address the issue.
“We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” Justice Corrigan wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”
Justice Corrigan's dissent is equally wrong-headed: the issue is one that the courts have found to be a fundamental right. That's not subject to a vote, which the majority specifically addressed, citing Perez vs Sharp, the 1948 case that invalidated California's miscegenation law.
The presidential candidates' reactions were as expected, but disappointing. Pam Spaulding, once again, has the quotes.
Obama was first out of the box with this:
Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.
Clinton's spokesperson:
"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."
And here goes McCain, er, flack Tucker Bounds:
"John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."
Needless to say, none of these is acceptable. As does Spaulding, I like Melissa McEwan's reaction:
Both of them should be ashamed. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't at least have said, "Congratulations to California's same-sex couples, who took a step forward toward equality today," which wouldn't even have been inconsistent with their civil union wankery. It's just unkind to have issued such flat sentiments.
UPDATE: Actually, upon consideration, Clinton gets an extra thumbs-down for the wholly unnecessary "in committed relationships," which invokes by counterweight the stereotype of Teh Promiscuous Gayz. "Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples should have the same..." would have sufficed, given that generally only committed couples want to get married, anyhow.
The Governor's statement is much better:
"I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
Chris Crain has a good post that highlights the important points the court made in its opinion, based on the court's decision that laws discriminating against gays must face "strict scrutiny":
"Strict scrutiny" means the state must have a "compelling interest" for treating gays differently and its classification must be "necessary" to serve that interest.
* Applying "strict scrutiny," the majority reaches four conclusions:
1. Excluding gay couples from marriage isn't necessary to preserve all the rights of marriage for opposite-sex couples.
2. Using "marriage" for straight couples and something else for gay couples "is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."
3. Given the history of anti-gay disparagement, separate designations is "likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature."
4. Separate institutions for gay and straight couples perpetuates the notion that gays are "second-class citizens."
I'm not going to get into the fringe right's reaction. Pam Spaulding has a sampling, as does Good As You. Spaulding also has links to organizations' releases.
More on this tomorrow, and probably over the next few days, as I read and absorb the opinion, the reactions, and develop my own thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment