A California Superior Court judge has ruled that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional in that state. I know nothing about the California state constitution, so I have no idea if the ruling is legally justified or not, but this part certainly nails the crux of the whole issue:
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.
This really is the entire point. There is no compelling reason why gays should not be allowed to have the same protections that straight couples have, and in the absence of a compelling interest we have only an arbitrary decision to make gays second class citizens. This ruling will be appealed to the California state Supreme Court. In the meantime, expect the usual blather about "judicial activism" and "unelected judges subverting the will of the people" - from the same groups who are now in court trying to get a judge to strike down last year's stem cell research bill in the same state, which was passed by public referendum. At what point does irony become plain old fashioned dishonesty?
- Log in to post comments
Ed, when they finally nail the coffin shut for the vacuous phrase "judicial activism," I hope you'll be handed a silver commemorative hammer.
It looks like the decision is available here. Kramer also rejects tradition and the promotion of procreation as compelling state interests to limit marriage.
Check the mirror, it's way behind you.
Can't Californians amend the state constitution by taking calls using a telethon phone bank? It's ridiculously easy, right?
That's why I fear the ruling won't stand. I'm reminded of what transpired in Alaska in 1998. A judge issued a preliminary ruling, instructing state attornies that they'd have to demonstrate a "rational purpose" if they wanted to win. Before they got a chance to try (and who knows what they would've come up with), Republicans in the legislature put a marriage amendment on that year's ballot. Wham, bam, too bad Dave & Sam.
Grumpy, that is certainly the risk we are taking, but, unless I understand it incorrectly, if the issue ever comes to the Supreme Court, the rulings in VT, MA, CA, HI, etc. can still be used to overturn the state-level laws and constitutional amendments. That does not, of course, protect us from a federal amendment, but we have to take what good news we can.
CPT Doom, I'm not following your reasoning when you say "the rulings ... can still be used to overturn state-level ... constitutional amendments".
This would only be true if the state rulings found a protection of marriage rights in the US Constitution. To my knowledge, the Massachusetts rulings were based only on the Massachusetts constitution. If this is correct, then the ruling is certainly vulnerable to an amendment to that same constitution.
Considering that Kramer is not only a Republican but also a Catholic one I would say that any comments about liberal judges legislating from the bench would still be firmly in ironic territory.
The decisions in VT and MA were both based on the state constitutions, not the federal constitution.
And Margaret Marshall, Chief Justice of the MA Supreme Judicial Court and author of the opinion in the MA case, was placed on the bench by Bill Weld, a Republican. One interesting fact is that she was born and raised in South Africa, and could not have escaped noticing the effects of Apartheid. I suspect that that was one of the reasons she insisted on having marriage for gay people, not separate but equal