it's about time
May. 15th, 2008 15:40![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
piranhaunexpectedly (at least for me), the california supreme court ruled today that california law as it currently stands may not discriminate against homosexual couples when it comes to marriage. this is a conservative court, with 6 of 7 judges republican appointees. the ruling went 4:3.
OMG, yay!
SF mayor gavin newsom said, "It's about human dignity. It's about civil rights. It's about time." indeed.
i know this might be short-lived because of the bloody ballot initiative, but wow. so good, at least for now.
ETA: i've now had time to read the judgment (pdf), and that explains why this court decided as it did, despite being as conservative as it is. it really is "just" a decision over whether california's law as written can define the very same rights for two different groups, but call them different things; ie. it's about allegedly "separate but equal" not actually BEING equal.
Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.
this is actually _very_ good, i think (but i am not a lawyer, yadda yadda). it raises the bar for new marriage laws being written to discriminate against gays (because we know this won't stop that), because equal protection will be hard to beat.
ETA 2: i remain as always not in favour of state-sponsored marriage, but while we have it, i firmly believe they ought to apply to all consenting adults who want to be married. yup, including polyfolk. i know; fat chance.
OMG, yay!
SF mayor gavin newsom said, "It's about human dignity. It's about civil rights. It's about time." indeed.
i know this might be short-lived because of the bloody ballot initiative, but wow. so good, at least for now.
ETA: i've now had time to read the judgment (pdf), and that explains why this court decided as it did, despite being as conservative as it is. it really is "just" a decision over whether california's law as written can define the very same rights for two different groups, but call them different things; ie. it's about allegedly "separate but equal" not actually BEING equal.
Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.
this is actually _very_ good, i think (but i am not a lawyer, yadda yadda). it raises the bar for new marriage laws being written to discriminate against gays (because we know this won't stop that), because equal protection will be hard to beat.
ETA 2: i remain as always not in favour of state-sponsored marriage, but while we have it, i firmly believe they ought to apply to all consenting adults who want to be married. yup, including polyfolk. i know; fat chance.
no subject
on 2008-05-15 22:54 (UTC)no subject
on 2008-05-16 14:11 (UTC)"In holding today that the right to marry guaranteed by the state
Constitution may not be withheld from anyone on the grounds of sexual
orientation, this court discharges its gravest and most important
responsibility under our constitutional form of government. There is a
reason why the words "Equal Justice Under Law" are inscribed above the
entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court. Both the
federal and state Constitutions guarantee to all the 'equal protection
of the laws" (U.S. Cont., 14th Amend.; Cal Const. art I, Sec. 7), and it
is the particular responsibility of the judiciary to enforce those
guarantees. The architects of our federal and state Constitutions
understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead
majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular
minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of
oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn
responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions
guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection."