Here’s the opinion. 172 pages for you to review!AP:
Read this useful bullet-point background from the Journal to get up to speed on the legal posture. Note that six of the seven justices on the court are Republicans. Will the ruling stick?
Proposition 22, the California ballot initiative that defined marriage in the state as between one man and one woman (even if the marriage was entered into in another state that allows same-sex marriage), passed in 2000 by a margin of 1.7 million votes.
A quick skim reveals that the opinion’s fairly straightforward. They start out by noting that California’s different from other states that have dealt with this insofar as it already has a robust domestic partnership law. All this is about, really, is whether gays should be allowed to “marry” the way straights do or whether they’re stuck with those partnership agreements that leave them married in effect but not in name. Conservatives like partnership schemes and/or civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage, but I’ve always thought that argument’s self-defeating since it leaves you with no substantive reason for drawing any distinction in the first place. Yes, (some) conservatives seem to be saying, gays can go ahead and have civil unions that grant them all the benefits married couples have ” but for god’s sake, don’t let them call themselves “married.” To which a court can only reply, “Why not?” The right’s strategy, in other words, has been to concede 99 yards and then stand on the one-yard line and say “no further,” but that’s not how discrimination jurisprudence works. If you’re going to discriminate you need a good reason, and depending upon whom you’re discriminating against, you may need a very, very good reason.
That’s actually the key ruling here: The court holds on page 95 that because sexual orientation is (1) immutable, (2) unrelated to one’s ability to function in society, and (3) a target of prejudice, it should be treated as a “suspect classification” for purposes of the state constitution’s equal protection clause. Once it’s deemed a suspect classification then the state needs a very compelling reason to justify discriminating on the basis of it ” and since, as I say, it’s already conceded those 99 yards, there’s no such reason to be had. (If you want to bore yourself with the vagaries of equal protection jurisprudence, read this old post about New Jersey’s gay marriage ruling.) All they’re doing is denying gays the label of marriage to preserve a sense of stigma, which is almost a paradigm case of what equal protection is meant to prevent. I have no problem with the ruling as long as other states aren’t compelled to recognize Cali marriages per full faith and credit, which, needless to say, is the battleground on which this decision’s going to be fought in the presidential race. Taking the federalist approach and letting each state decide for itself is an easy call for Maverick; what about the Prince of Peace?
Trackposted to <a href=”http://thevirtuousrepublic.com/?p=686″>The Virtuous Republic</a>, <a href=”http://rosemarysthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/05/too-tired.html”>Rosemary’s Thoughts</a>, <a href=”http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/05/terror-alert.html”>Right Truth</a>, <a href=”http://koderas-korner.blogspot.com/2008/05/gaying-to-chapel.html”>Kodera’s Korner</a>, <a href=”http://www.oblogatoryanecdotes.com/2008/05/weekend-open-trackbacks-515-18.html”>Oblogatory Anecdotes</a>, <a href=”http://caosblog.com/7836″>Cao’s Blog</a>, <a href=”http://www.dequalss.com/wp/2008/05/16/fake-mosque-used-in-training-drill-cair-pissed/”>Democrat=Socialist</a>, <a href=”http://www.conservativecat.com”>Conservative Cat</a>, <a href=”http://www.themadpigeon.com/diary_of_the_mad_pigeon/2008/05/thursday-open-2.html”>Diary of the Mad Pigeon</a>, <a href=”http://faultlineusa.blogspot.com/2008/05/its-either-mccain-or.html”>Faultline USA</a>, <a href=”http://www.thirdworldcounty.us/?p=3509″>third world county</a>, <a href=”http://nukegingrich.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/good-for-your-heart/”>Nuke Gingrich</a>, <a href=”http://www.womanhonorthyself.com/?p=5021″>Woman Honor Thyself</a>, <a href=”http://mccainblogs.com/2008/05/16/mccaniac-weekend-linkfest-sticky-post-516-518/”>McCain Blogs</a>, <a href=”http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/?p=1412″>The World According to Carl</a>, <a href=”http://www.thepiratescove.us/2008/05/16/avast-weekend-pirate-linkfest-516-518/”>Pirate’s Cove</a>, <a href=”http://thepinkflamingo.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/5/16/3694424.html”>The Pink Flamingo</a>, <a href=”http://www.anewtone.com/2008/05/its-never-enough-for-liberals.html”></a>, <a href=”http://sports.outsidethebeltway.com/2008/05/oscar-pistorius-double-amputee-olympic-sprinter/”>OTB Sports</a>, and <a href=”http://www.yankeesailor.us/?p=759″>The Yankee Sailor</a>, thanks to <a href=”http://www.linkfests.us”>Linkfest Haven Deluxe</a>.<a href=”http://www.linkfests.us/”><img src=”http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/307/106/320/linkfest.jpg” alt=”Linkfest Haven, the Blogger’s Oasis” /></a> Weekend Open Trackbacks 5/15-18
I’d hate to say to my friends here that I told you so, but…
:d go ahead say it SFL
Even “Ahnold” supports the decision. Go figure.
SFL and Eben. The issue here is not that gay marriage should or should not be but rather four judges do NOT have the right to supercede a majority decision by the citizens of the state of California. It simply does not work that way in a democracy.
I’m assuming you both approve of having a democracy where the majority rules?
“I’m assuming you both approve of having a democracy where the majority rules”
———-
And I would assume that you approve of Checks and Balances on laws passed by state or federal governments, no?
I believe there should be checks and balances and I also think there are not enough from our politicians in Washington. However, I don’t believe it’s the job of the judiciary to make laws. Their job is only to uphold them.
The will of the people is what makes our society work. The minority has to concede to the majority in the rule of law.
#11
Oh yeah they do when BonBon.
Think of it like putting integration up for popular vote in the segregated South in the mid-60s. Blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus and drinking from separate water fountains.
Certain things cannot be left to voters whose religious bias has no place in the equal rights of ALL Americans.
I hope that clarifies things for you.:)
13-
“The will of the people is what makes our society work. The minority has to concede to the majority in the rule of law.”
When the will of the people is based in religous misconception that impedes and would serve to deny decent Americans the same rights you take for granted it’s the DUTY of the State Supreme Court to expunge religious bias from polluting our country’s Constitution.
I’m sorry BonBon but Joe bigot in his single-wide dressed in his stained t-shirt doesn’t get to decide who I marry. End of topic.
“However, I don’t believe it’s the job of the judiciary to make laws. Their job is only to uphold them.”
———-
…AND…most relevant to this particular issue; their DUTY to VOID laws when they are unconstitutional.
(!)
This is a very basic American government/legal concept.
Checks and balances.
18- Being black is not a choice Eben.
11 states banned same sex marriage in November of 2004 and they weren’t all religious states that you so despise. Many Democrats went to the polls and voted for the ban. Each ban was Constitutional.
May 8, 2008
Michigan Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Benefits
The Michigan Supreme Court has upheld a lower-court ruling that Michigan’s public universities and other government agencies may not extend employee benefits to a worker’s same-sex partner.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-2 decision released on Wednesday, ruled that Michigan’s constitutional ban on gay marriage also covers employee benefits. Recognition of domestic partnerships is considered no different than marriage, the court said.
It’s unclear what effect the ruling may have on Michigan’s state employees because many public agencies have changed their benefits policies to include unmarried individuals living together but not legally related, the Detroit Free Press reported today.
I,ll bet the demacrooks will want these four crinimal judges in the U.S. SUPREUM COURT8-}
18- Being black is not a choice Eben.
Newsflash Pam; neither is being gay no matter what you prefer to think.
You tell me when you “chose”(date, time, and age) to be heterosexual. See? Easy.
All religious intolerance to same sex marriage is Christian or funamentalist relition-based. It’s contrary to the very foundations of the structure of our Constitution. That’s why it keeps getting called “UNCONSTITUIONAL”.
Leave your own particular spoon-fed prejudices out of it Pam.
#30
Restate:
all INTOLERANCE toward same sex marriage has Christian or fundamentalist religion at its core.
There is no such thing as gay “marriage”. “Marriage” has no definition outside the context of religion.
The proper term is gay union.
Pam I think yer being called a “Homophobe”.
#32-
“There is no such thing as gay “marriageâ€. “Marriage”has no definition outside the context of religion.”
Prove that permise.
Religion has no patent on the word. What is it that threatens you so about gay people having the precise access to the word and designation as you Robbie?
You, Robert, are mistaken.
And as for Pammie. Only she know what lies in her heart.
** premise
Eben- A person choses to have a sex change. A person choses to be gay. That is quite different from being born a black person. And that is why same sex marriage bans are not being over-turned in the states. CA will be over-ruled on this one.
My name is Pam and Robert is named Robert. Either stay mature in the conversation or leave.
You seem to always want to compare the struggle of the homosexual to that of the black race Eben, and it is a silly comparison. Blacks have had a far greater struggle than that of the gays. You seem to think that blacks need to accept you because you are gay, as you described your situation with your black neighbors. As I told you before, it isn’t your homosexuality they dislike, it is you and your attitude that tends to make people despise you. You demand acceptance from society, yet that society you demand it from is comprised of the very people you so despise, that being anyone that is religious.
Hey Pam?
You still haven’t told me when you “chose” to be heterosexual. You didn’t did you? Can’t quite figure that one out can you.
My homosexuality no more defines me than you heterosexuality does you. I did not choose any more than you chose whatever or whoever you deign to sleep with. What about me being born homosexual screws with your sense of the natural order of things so Pam? Hmmm? There is no shortage of heterosexuals to people this planet with another generation of bigots and judgmental sheep.
When you have the audacity to call my sexual orientation a “choice” all bets are off… so I’ll call you as I see you. This place is known for it’s unkindness and mockery of anything but the fading “Religious Right” (self-proclaimed) so don’t go getting all righteous on my gay ass.
Further: The comparison of blacks (slavery is sanctioned far more often in the Old Testament than the few vague references to homosexuality) to the plight of the homosexual today is on target and infinitely comparable. So it’s anything but ‘silly’.
You have no idea what my black neighbors like or dislike.
Most of them are disfunctional heterosexuals without benefit of marriage, with numerous children by various fathers sucking off the teat of the welfare system we (I suspect this includes you) pay into. I have less and less respect by the day.
But THEY are heterosexuals so it’s cool yes? Horse doody.
However the parallel to the struggles and won skirmishes of gay folks in this new century directly correlates to the struggle for inclusion for blacks in the 1960s. Why would that offend you so? I know! I know!! RELIGION.
Keep your religion out of my bedroom.
You see Pam? Beneath your attempt at exhalted above-board rhetoric may just be what Robert called you the beating heart of a ‘HOMOPHOBE’. Not that I really give to shits.
And do not presuppose my take on religion generally. It’s the few who ruin it for the many. I’m clear as crystal on that one.
**two
I can chose to have sex with another female Eben. I chose to be heterosexual.
As I have said in previous conversations with you, I am all for the rights of gays to have the same legal benefits as that which my husband and I have.
I can only go by what you have shared about your black neighbors and I can use your words against you…
That public teat is available to lesbians that have children, as it is not based upon one sexuality or race, but upon ones family situation. Yes, we pay too much and it needs to be stopped, but that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Where did you get that I was offended by gay rights? I am astonished that you think that this country cares even a tenth of what they did for the civil rights struggle of the blacks. Most people yawn or shrug their shoulders as if to say who cares when you bring up the struggle of gays. It is not a civil rights issue, nor is it comparable to the 1960′s.
“A person choses to have a sex change.”
————
Pam, can you even possibly imagine why someone would chose to do that?
Is it possible for you to close your eyes and try to imagine what kind of lives – often secretive and miserable – these people have led, most since before adolesence, that would lead them to make such a drastic physical/social change?
I’ll bet a dollar you do not know, personally, anyone who has ever had a sex change.
You do not know what you are talking about on this one.
————————————-
“A person choses to be gay.”
————
No, they do not.
Simply ask any gay person you meet that question, repeatedly to as many of them as you can, and you will quickly realize just how fucking stupid that notion is.
Again, no offense, but…come on. Take those bigoted blinders off and you will see the truth of the matter.
And further more, I believe the current civil rights/social acceptance struggle of LGBT crowd is very comparable to the racial struggles of past decades.
Both struggles, at their fundamental core, are about the same things: Acceptance in society. To be treated exactly the same. To have the same things that others have.
Opposition to this acceptance is bigotry, pure and simple.
Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
Who really wants to be a bigot, in todays world?? Not you guys, I hope.
“I can chose to have sex with another female Eben.”
———–
Ok, but can you choose to be ATTRACTED to another female???
THAT is the differene.
(!)
“Most people yawn or shrug their shoulders as if to say who cares when you bring up the struggle of gays.”
————-
Yes, EXACTLY like they did for nearly 100 years after the civil war, regarding the struggle of blacks in America, before they were made to pay attention by the media showing what was really happening in the south. (!)
You’re not making the connection, when it’s right in front of you. Dig a bit deeper.
SFL- define attracted. Hookers have sex but are they attracted to all the people that they sleep with? Hookers and porn stars perform same sex acts for money.
SFL,you chose to live in a homosexual community, the gayest area of our country, so I would guess that your view is somewhat skewed by the fact that you aren’t in contact with too many people that will verbalize their true feelings.
There isn’t anything bigoted about my feelings. My feelings are that gays chose their lifestyle. It doesn’t give me reason to hate them. They are choosing to live their life the way they do. As I said, give gay couple the same legal benefits that are afforded to my husband and myself. What I find interesting about the gay friends and relatives that I have is that all, not some, have had a history of molestation/abuse as a child. Please don’t lecture about intolerance and bigotry when you then turn around and demonise religious people. The struggle of the LGBT sect of our society is nothing compared to the civil rights movement of the 19th and 20th century. Blacks were denied access to schools, bathrooms, seats on buses, enterance to public establishments, denied access to public schools that whites attended, were kept as slaves, etc., none of which is true of the homosexual community.
44- No, on the contrary, the majority in this country wanted the blacks to have equality. Many more states had already “accepted” them by the time the Civil Rights Act had passed.
“Beneath your attempt at exhalted above-board rhetoric may just be what Robert called you the beating heart of a ‘HOMOPHOBE’. Not that I really give to shits.”
Eben, you are delirious. I pointed out that you, in so many words, called Pam a homophobe.
I’ll make my argument even more empirical. There is no such thing as gay or same-sex marriage, because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
Any attempt to redefine it otherwise is activist.
#46 “the blacks”??
#45 ”
My feelings are that gays chose their lifestyle. It doesn’t give me reason to hate them.”
Oh very generous.
When again did you “chose” to be attracted to men precisely?
#43 “Ok, but can you choose to be ATTRACTED to another female???
THAT is the differene.”
(!)
Indeed it is.
It’s like blowing smoke up their arses SF. They refuse to understand that being a homosexual is identical to being heterosexual. It defines us no more or less than their sexuality.
Yet should you ask Pam if she’d be able to “choose” to be attracted to another female she’d undoubtledly say “no”.
In that same way I cannot – nor am I inclined by design – to be attracted to the female of our species.
No harm done until people make it their business to move into our bedrooms with their notions that THEIR sexuality is valid and “right” where ours is not.
#41 -
“Where did you get that I was offended by gay rights? I am astonished that you think that this country cares even a tenth of what they did for the civil rights struggle of the blacks. Most people yawn or shrug their shoulders as if to say who cares when you bring up the struggle of gays. It is not a civil rights issue, nor is it comparable to the 1960′s.”
How very wrong you are.
I was beaten and left for dead by seven homophobes last September after they repeatedly called me “faggot” and I finally responded by saying “Shut the fuck up pencil dick”.
“Shrug their shoulders”? Do you live in a vacuum? Walk a mile in another’s shoes before you dismiss. It has a certain insidious audacity about which I’m sure was your intent as you wrote it.
http://www.GodHatesFags.com
41- “That public teat is available to lesbians that have children, as it is not based upon one sexuality or race, but upon ones family situation. Yes, we pay too much and it needs to be stopped, but that has nothing to do with homosexuality.”
It does when those bastards are accepted by this society simply for on the basis of sexual oreientation alone.
They can call me “faggot” but I’d be a dead man were I to respond with “nigger”.