Justice Moreno in his dissent argues that enforcing equal protection requires protection for all aspects of the law.
“Denying the designation of marriage to same-sex couples cannot fairly be described as a “narrow” or “limited” exception to the requirement of equal protection; the passionate public debate over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, even in a state that offers largely equivalent substantive rights through the alternative of domestic partnership, belies such a description. “[T]he constitutional right to marry . . . has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution . . . .”
He argues that the court in its decision creates a legal distinction between two groups for no other reason than a fear and hatred of a minority by the majority that will “emasculat[e] the equal protection clause of the California Constitution as a provision of independent force and effect.”
At the same time, the court leaves in place 18,000 marriages that were performed between the previous Supreme Court decision and the passage of Proposition 8. This seems to immediately place a tension between the court law that forbids same sex marriage and the fact that there are 18,000 same-sex couples who are legally married–in short, this arrangement appears unsustainable and in the long run untenable. In some ways, the court demonstrates its support for same sex marriage but the inability either legally or politically to overturn a majority vote of the people of California.
The Court decision triggered much reaction both locally and in California.
Yolo County’s Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada, a long time supporter of same sex marriage issued a statement this morning reading:
“I am deeply disappointed in the State Supreme Court ruling today. While I am heartened for the 18,000 couples whose marriages remain legal, the quest for marriage equality for all is far from over. I remain committed to the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for all Californians.”
The Vanguard spoke with another outspoken proponent of marriage equality, County Clerk Freddie Oakley who has for the past few years protested the law each Valentine’s Day with symbolic certificates of inequality.
Ms. Oakley said in reaction to the ruling:
“Well it’s sad but not unexpected, just think if term limits was not a constitutional revision but an amendment, then Prop 8 is probably covered by the same broad brush that the constitution permits voters to employ. I’m very sad but I’m not surprised.”
As a non-lawyer she was unsure about the legal ramifications of leaving in place the existing marriages while forbidding news one.
“But it seems to me on the face of it that there might be an equal protection issue. As I said, I’m not a lawyer I don’t know exactly how that’s supposed to work. But certainly on the face it, some people got to do something that other people don’t get to do under the same government, that doesn’t seem right to me.”
From her standpoint, this decision means more Valentine’s Day protests.
“It means that we’ll continue to work with the LGBT community as they go forward and try to rationalize the law in this manner. Certainly we’ll be going back to having demonstrations on Valentine’s Day.”
However, she also seems hopeful that progress in the rest of the country will bring change to California.
“It’s very interesting to me how other parts of the country are out ahead of us on this. I think that means that eventually California will catch up. It’s just odd that we’re not in the lead. We usually are but this time, we’re not. I think that there will be a subtle social pressure that will make this issue look less and less important to the anti-gay marriage caucus as it goes forward. Because let’s face it, if people in Iowa can have same-sex marriages it seems strange that it’s not yet permitted in California.”
Earlier the LGBT Caucus of the California Legislature held a press conference in the Capitol.
Tom Ammiano, a prominent leader in the LGBT community both in his years as a Supervisor in San Francisco and now as an Assemblymember said:
“This is really a disappointing verdict by the justices of the California Supreme Court. They really seem to have abandoned all moral compass around this issue. Politically I understand what needs to be done, politically I have hope and politically I know we will have success. Personally I am very distressed, I feel like I might be a second class citizen. I feel like people I know will be second class citizens. Ken Starr in my mind is a moralistic simpleton. And that his arguments could have swayed that court really really challenges all reason. I know that today we will see many protests, you have to understand that people are justifiably angry. We are also here to provide the leadership to say that that anger has to be focused. If they want a fight–they are going to get a fight. We are going to be victorious.”
He saw a great sense of irony with respect to the breakthrough with Obama’s Supreme Court nominee as a Latina and now this decision.
“The irony today, I think is that it was auspicious that President Obama nominated the first Latina Supreme Court Justice and she said in her opening statement that one of the things she likes about what she does is the challenges and complexities of the law. I’m going to second guess her and say what I think she is saying is that the law itself happens in a context, the law itself does not always signal an unbiased viewpoint or trajectory. The law itself needs to be challenged, need to be honed.”
He concluded with a message of hope:
“To the young people out there I say feel what you’re feeling but also know that mobilization and also know that focus is going to win the day. The message is one of hope and that’s what we feel along with our anger.”
Assemblyman John Perez, himself the first openly gay legislator of color took heart in Justice Moreno’s dissent:
“I’m heartened by Justice Moreno’s dissenting opinion and his eloquent words when he said “Even a narrow and limited exception to the promise of full equality strikes at the core that guarantees equal treatment.” In just over a year more than five states agreed with those words, and recognize marital equality in their states. This decision is deeply felt in millions of people across the country who see California as a beacon of hope. As disappointed as I am with the Supreme Court decision with respect to Proposition 8 it is one moment in a long struggle. I do not feel deterred today. I’ll remind you of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King who said “the arc of history is long but it bends toward justice.” I remain optimistic that through our hard work and dedication that California will strike down these temporary impediments to our long journey. But it’s up to us.”
Senator Mark Leno is the first openly gay man to serve in California Senate:
“Today’s decision is extremely disappointing for California and hurts thousands of caring couples who wish to make lifelong commitments to one another through marriage. Let today’s decision be a rallying cry for all Californians who believe in equality and fairness, and encourage thousands more to stand up and fight the pervasive injustices LGBT people face in our community and our nation.”
“The issue before this court was much greater than marriage equality. The question asked of our justices goes to the core of our society. Can a majority vote undermine a foundation stone of our constitutional democracy, equal protection under the law? Today our highest court ruled that minorities do not matter.”
“Through our disappointment, we will still find hope and encouragement, including the 18,000 couples whose marriages in California remain secure and protected today. Through our sadness, our resolve to fight for justice and equality only grows stronger. Love is an unstoppable force, and equality is right around the corner.”
Speaking as well were numerous other Democratic legislators from both houses of the legislature including most of the leadership.
The most touching moment came with the very brief statement by San Diego’s Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders.
“I just want to assure you this is not a political decision, I’m a Republican. I have two daughters, one whose lesbian and one whose straight.”
He went on to very briefly express his dismay for the verdict and his support for equality.
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa also spoke:
“This is about families. This is about the basic notion that everyone of us have the right to love and the right to have a family. To have the right to something that we’ve always considered so basic to society. Basic liberty and basic pursuit of happiness… This is a dark day in California, a day when we step back and deny equality to a whole group of Californians.”
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has been an outspoken and at times controversial supporter of marriage equality. He issued a statement today:
“California at its best is a beacon of equal rights and equal opportunities. If we want to prosper together, we must respect each other. That’s why we must resolve to overturn this decision. Let this work start today.
It is up to every single one of us who supports marriage equality to reach out to those who still disagree with our position and have a personal conversation about why it is so important to treat every Californian equally.
Across the nation, states like Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts are recognizing that separate can never be equal under the eyes of the law. We must all do our part to make sure California joins in this march toward equality.
Let’s be respectful. But let’s be clear. We must start changing minds today. I know many of my fellow Californians may initially agree with this ruling, but I ask them to reserve final judgment until they have discussed this decision with someone who will be affected by it.”
The Gay-Straight Alliance For Equality (GSAFE) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are holding a rally in Central Park in Davis this evening at 6:00 p.m. for supporters of the marriage equality movement in the wake of today’s historic California Supreme Court decision concerning the passage of Proposition 8 in November.
Tomorrow from 6 to 7 pm, Vanguard Radio will host Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac, two long-time supporters of marriage equality who themselves were married last year in Yolo County and have often been the face of the marriage equality movement. It was with great sadness that we saw their picture in the LA Times today of them in tears outside of the Supreme Court in San Francisco.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think in his haste to get this out, Mr. Greenwald failed to talk to anyone with a differing opinion. Given that prop-8 won the majority of the vote, you would think he could find a person or two to talk to. He might be required to ensure anonymity since the somewhat militant gay-rights activists are intent on forced discrimination and public humiliation of people that don’t agree with them. Which, by the way, is a fine way to act while complaining about how one’s civil rights are being tramped on.
It would seem that by allowing the 18000 existing gay marriages to stand, the court was clear in backing the initiative process and the will of the majority voters, and not creating a judiciary-legislated bit of social engineering. The 18000 got in before prop-8, so from a legal and process perspective, the court couldn’t undo it. There is certainly going to be a bit of complexity now in how to interpret this ruling for downstream laws, regulations and practices.
I wonder if married gays will be able to discriminate against non-married gays?
If you want the opposite viewpoint go to Fox News.
I thought Fox News was fair and balanced. That’s what they always tell me, anyway. “We report, you decide” etc.
Just like it is wrong to discriminate against Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Native Americans, Italians, Irish, it is also wrong to discriminate against gay people because of their sexual orientation.
Good coverage on the issue David. The other side that does not support equality and fairness and instead supports fear, hatred and untrue stereotypes has been framing the debate on this gay marriage for far too long.
[quote]This seems to immediately place a tension between the court law that forbids same sex marriage and the fact that there are 18,000 same-sex couples who are legally married–in short, this arrangement appears unsustainable and in the long run untenable. [/quote]I don’t see how it is either unsustainable (as law) or untenable. We have thousands of situations where previous circumstances, contracts and other arrangements which were put in place or agreed to prior to a change in law get grandfathered in. That may not be perfectly fair, but these cases don’t seem untenable to me.
What is not likely to be sustained is a majority population in California opposing full equal rights for gays in the long run. Maybe in 10 years or so, a new measure will be put on the ballot to overturn Prop 8 and that will pass. I think the tide of history, here, and in most other states outside of the Bible Belt (and Book of Mormon Belt), suggests that is the inevitable trend. Ultimately, only the religious conservatives will oppose treating gays under the law the same as straights.
There is not equivalent situation where you have 18000 people married to people the rest of the population cannot marry to.
If one views marriage as a set of laws that dictate property rights (i.e. who gets the kids when you die, how asset title transfers on death or divorce), then there is no principled reason to deny gays all the legal accoutrement of marriage.
If, however, you view marriage as a sacrament (which many citizens do) then history is replete with unsuccessful attempts to legislate theological beliefs.
Right now, the citizens voted against gay marriage. You may not like it, but that’s the reality. The change to recognize gay marriage will occur over the next generation as the electorate’s moral compass moves, as the majority opinion on this issue evolves and their theological beliefs change. The legal analysis of the Supreme court is correct. And it will still be correct when another initiative passes down the line recognizing gay marriage. If gay marriage is what the voters want, it will occur, and the court will support it.
And it will; occur – just not today.
Unless, of course, the US Supreme Court leads the way before then.
The California Supreme Court Decision concerning Proposition 8 is clear: It states, “In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the ‘inalienable rights’ theory proffered by Attorney General Brown. We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid. Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must ‘find its expression at the ballot box.’”
So stop whining already and get to work!
“So stop whining already and get to work!”
That’s kind of what I saw at the press conference. I didn’t see a lot of complaints. I saw, an expression of sorrow and disappointment. I think that’s a reasonable thing to express when you feel sorrow and are disappointed by an outcome.
But I also saw a lot of hope for the future and a belief that things will get better but it will take as you put it, work to do so.
I thought there was a reasonable mix of both and tomorrow they will move on to other fights.
Can there be an appeal on this ruling?
“It’s a blog and not supposed to be balanced”?
“…supposed to…” sounds alarmingly like a playground taunt. Where is the “Supposed to, Not supposed to” list to be found?
Did David Greenwald go to journalism school and take the normal first year Ethics class?
On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times today reports:
“Even with the court upholding Proposition 8, a key portion of the court’s May 15, 2008, decision [legalizing gay marriage] remains intact. Sexual orientation will continue to receive the strongest constitutional protection possible when California courts consider cases of alleged discrimination. The California Supreme Court is the only state high court in the nation to have elevated sexual orientation to the status of race and gender in weighing discrimination claims.”
“Maybe in 10 years or so, a new measure will be put on the ballot to overturn Prop 8 and that will pass.”
I think it will be much sooner than ten years.
This is just one more example of what is wrong with California’s initiative process. It is ludicrous that a carefully crafted constitution can so easily be amended/revised (to deny one group rights afforded to others — and, by other initiatives, to screw up the budgeting process). We need a constitutional convention in this state to fix the underlying mess.
I like the comments on what a blog is supposed to be. Reminds me of the quote, “Freedom of the press is reserved to those who own a press,” or words to that effect. Because this blog is the only viable alternative to the Enterprise, I think there is a tendency to view it as, Fox news claims to be, “Fair and balanced.” This is not the case. This is a forum for one person’s opinions, be it on gay marriage, horse ranch development, or anything else. (And I think that is a good thing.) This blog is a benefit to our community, but it is not “fair.” Don’t expect it to be.
I mean, if they were going to uphold the decision, why bother to get involved in the first place? all they are doing is bringing the wrath of the no-on 8 people down on them. Now they have to worry about being followed. They had to have known the no on 8 would not be satisfied with anything less than total victory, so why bring trouble? Also, the state cannot heal if this thing is always in the spotlight. The state supreme court made a stupid move. Second, they look stupid because they reversed their own decision.
“The Gay-Straight Alliance For Equality (GSAFE) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are holding a rally in Central Park in Davis this evening at 6:00 p.m.”
the usual suspects. these organizations throw their weight around like they run California.
“I like the comments on what a blog is supposed to be. Reminds me of the quote, “Freedom of the press is reserved to those who own a press,” or words to that effect. Because this blog is the only viable alternative to the Enterprise, I think there is a tendency to view it as, Fox news claims to be, “Fair and balanced.” This is not the case. This is a forum for one person’s opinions, be it on gay marriage, horse ranch development, or anything else. (And I think that is a good thing.) This blog is a benefit to our community, but it is not “fair.” Don’t expect it to be.”
Good points, but Greenwald has bent over backwards to permit blog comments from all viewpoints, only excluding hard obscenities and comments with no other clear point than to defame an individual (ad hominem attacks). So there is an opportunity to object constructively to the blog posts.
But to add to your point, when cities with more than one newspaper were common, it was typical to subscribe to the one whose editorial positions aligned most to your own views. That’s what you see with the Vanguard. A forum of challenge to status quo policies is a good thing in a democracy, just to keep everyone on their toes.
[quote]Ultimately, only the religious conservatives will oppose treating gays under the law the same as straights.[/quote]
Assuming we “progress” as a society and eventually overturn prop-8, at some point in the future we will also forget and forgive the perpetual gay-rights movement for their next step pushing legislation and using legal actions to force religious institutions to not discriminate between straight and gay couples. We can see this trend already with the gay-rights attacks on the Boy Scouts.
Because the argument in support of gay marriage lacks substance (when civil unions and anti-discrimination laws should satisfy all tangible needs), no great stretch of the imagination is required to envision the next step forcing gay-rights on religion. Gays can deny it now because as a victims group at any time they can demand their “progress” at the expense of those not included on the list of politically-correct association. Religion is completely out of vogue these days in our pop culture; and given our ongoing Europeanization, we are likely to continue the trend of urban progressives reengineering us to a more secular society.
For these reasons, conservatives and religious folk should fight gay-marriage tooth and nail. It is not a civil rights issue; they are fighting to delay the march of progressives who want to reengineer our society and culture away from traditional values.
Personally, I don’t care if gays can legally marry; however, I fully support the big fight against it because social and cultural norms are important to bind a society. Changing the definition of marriage is a big deal and as a society considering big-deal change we are better served by the big fight.
This civil rights garbage is just that, garbage. They have a civil unions option reasonable to everyone that no doubt would pass and grant gays their rights but noooo, they have to take it farther. This is about secularizing the church and making sure churches make a public endorsement of homosexuality. They relish in these marches. It gives them all kinds of attention they don’t deserve. Don’t let these people fool you, they get off on having the supreme cours strike them down because it provides them the opportunity to use the megaphone one more time and get attention.
“Religion is completely out of vogue these days in our pop culture”
Really? when did this happen? I must have missed it.
“For these reasons, conservatives and religious folk should fight gay-marriage tooth and nail. It is not a civil rights issue; they are fighting to delay the march of progressives who want to reengineer our society and culture away from traditional values.”
I attend church regularly, and my church supports gay marriage. Am I not religious folk? And you asking me to go against the teachings of my church to fight gay marriage?
I think you missed the tongue-n-cheek aspect of the post.
Same-sex partners are common throughout animal world:
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/jun/17/same-sex-relationships-gay-animals[/url]