On Tuesday the California Supreme Court voted to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage approved in November of last year by a referendum of California voters on Proposition 8. Softening the blow slightly, they ruled that about 18,000 gay couples who were married before the law took effect will remain legally married.
The 6 to 1 court decision came in response to a number of lawsuits which were based around the assertion that the ban on gay marriage violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution and was invalid because it was not approved by the legislature before being submitted to a referendum.
When the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in May of 2008, it ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to be married was state-sanctioned discrimination, but apparently that discrimination is acceptable when it comes at the decision of a majority of the voters rather than the state legislature.
The announcement triggered widespread protests and marches, signalling a renewed effort to change California's law on gay marriage, though without the support of the courts it may be difficult to reverse the results of the Proposition 8 referendum.
In the time since Proposition 8 passed, three other states (Iowa, Vermont and Maine) have joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in legalizing same-sex marriage and more states seem likely to follow this trend before the year is out.
This situation highlights the problems with California's initiative and referendum system which can permit the effective tyranny of the majority over the rights of minority groups, and has also played a role in California's critical budget crisis by placing unmanagable financial obligations on the state. It also creates a bizarre system of legal inequality where gay marriage is illegal for most Californians, but remains legal for the 18,000 same-sex couples who are already married. This anomalous situation guarantees further court challenges and renewed efforts to reverse the ban, most likely through the ballot initiative process to pass a new amendment to the California constitution to reverse Proposition 8.
Pastor Chris Clark of the East Clairemont Southern Baptist Church in San Diego who was part of a coalition of ministers working against gay marriage rights, said: "This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and when the people feel that there's a branch of government that is not representing them properly, it is their right and responsibility to take it back and let their voice be heard."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Ruvy
Well, at least we see that there is more happening in America than Hispanic women being nominated for the supreme court. I'm wondering when someone will notice that Norh Korea is smoking its nuclear cigars again, for example. I'd write about it myself but work calls.... I guess that for Americans, North Korea is "far, far away" and just don't matter.
2 - Jordan Richardson
Ruvy, I was thinking of doing something for the North Korea situation, but I'm trying to learn more about it first. Maybe in the next few days. It is perhaps the most vital situation on our planet right now and requires an urgent solution, yet the majority of the talk round here seems glued right where it always is.
3 - Dave Nalle
I had to struggle through the Sotomayor fog to get this important but largely overlooked issue covered. I'll try to get to North Korea tomorrow if no one else does it. Sadly I have actual work to do and that makes it hard for me to be a one-man news service for BC.
Dave
4 - El Bicho
"This anomalous situation guarantees further court challenges"
Ted Olson and David Boies already filed suit in federal court on Tuesday
5 - Dave Nalle
I wouldn't be surprised to see this go to the SCOTUS. Wouldn't it be interesting if California's disastrous and oppressive initiative and referendum system were brought down by this issue.
Maybe that would stop all these damn Californians from flooding into Texas and gobbling up our tech jobs.
Dave
6 - Baronius
I've been surprised at the lack of coverage of both these stories in the press.
I think the court made the right ruling, and it's certainly the result I wanted to see, but I wasn't expecting it. Opponents were arguing that the ban fundamentally changed the state constitution, and that's a real stretch. But when the liberal "haves" want something, they won't let the will of the people or the courts stand in their way forever.
North Korea won't get much coverage because it contradicts the "peaceful world under Obama" narrative.
7 - Dr Dreadful
I've been surprised at the lack of coverage of both these stories in the press.
Battle fatigue, I think, at least in the case of Prop 8.
The court understandably erred on the side of caution, but there was a strong case for the proposition having violated the state constitution's equal protection clause. The thing is, the language of Prop 8 is now also part of the state constitution... so what happens when one part of the constitution is at loggerheads with another?
That's why, I think, Dave expects this to go all the way to DC. And I hope he's right that one upshot of this will be that California's ballot initiative system comes a cropper. It's very dangerous and Californians have frequently voted for popularism and against their own best interests. I do, however, get a sense that the people of the Golden State are wearying of having to consider all manner of wacky propositions, measures and initiatives several times a year, and increasingly seem to be voting all of them down on general principle: hence the recent failure of Props 1A through C.
An initiative's best chance of success seems to be to get on the ballot at a general election, when the turnout and passions are higher and the electorate is more persuadable.
As far as North Korea goes, I've seen some good coverage on the BBC. The prevailing feeling seems to be - while admittedly you never know with the DPRK - that the current round of saber-rattling has less to do with the North's international relations than with the complex internal manoeuvrings with regard to who gets to take over from Kim when he decides to retire or pops his clogs.
8 - zingzing
ruvy: "I guess that for Americans, North Korea is "far, far away" and just don't matter."
yep, we don't care about it at all. that's obviously true. never even heard of the place. what is this mysterious land? i assume it is north of south korea...
just because something hasn't popped up here doesn't mean we're completely unaware of it.
baronius, what sources of information are you missing that you haven't seen "much" coverage of north korea? oh wait, you have seen it, you're just saying that because it fits your point better. i get it. it's cool.
as for prop-8, i guess hate wins again. anyone who thinks that laws restricting someone's rights is a good thing needs to take a good, long look in the mirror. your day is done, anyway... it's just that the sun is setting very, very slow.
9 - Baronius
Zing, I just didn't see much coverage in the mainstream press about NK. Maybe there was and I missed it. Anyway, "NORTH KOREA ACTS CRAZY" can only be a news story so many times, so I could understand if it got diminished coverage.
10 - Baronius
Dread, "comes a cropper"? I can't even guesss from context.
11 - zingzing
it's at the top of cnn.com right now, third down on nytimes.com. i'm sure you can look at other major news sites and find the same thing happening.
your last sentence is true... because of fatigue, and the fact that the largest reason nk does this shit is to get attention like some ignored child.
12 - Baronius
Dave, does this CA Supreme Court decision overturn the Miss USA results?
13 - Doug Hunter
"anyone who thinks that laws restricting someone's rights is a good thing needs to take a good, long look in the mirror."
I appreciate laws that restrict the right to murder someone else or molest children. It's whether or not you agree with the underlying morals that matters. Apparently, you have no qualms with gay marriage, some folks have no problem with adults and children having sex, or prostitution, or bestiality. We have a system called democracy set up to determine things like this, which of our made up morals get coded into law and democracy has spoken. Does 'hate' win because you don't support NAMBLA's position? These are morals, there is no 'logic' to them, there is no 'right'.
14 - Cindy
It's not a moral issue for you, who I have sex with. In fact what is a moral issue here is whether or not you have any right to interfere with my life.
Dominating people is a moral issue.
15 - Dave Nalle
Dave, does this CA Supreme Court decision overturn the Miss USA results?
I think that the Court of The Donald has already ruled on that one.
Dave
16 - Dr Dreadful
"comes a cropper"? I can't even guesss from context.
Baronius, 'to come a cropper' means to injure yourself, to have something unfortunate happen so that you can't continue doing what you were doing, or just generally to go splat.
Not sure of the origin of the expression - it may be an old racing or prizefighting term.
17 - zingzing
doug hunter: "some folks have no problem with adults and children having sex, or prostitution, or bestiality."
oh, doug... that is such a tired argument. and it's complete bullshit. as for your nambla argument, molesting/having sex with a child is already illegal. (as it should be.) it's not "hate" to deny a man's ability to fuck a helpless boy.
being gay is not illegal. it's two adults having whatever kind of fun they want. still, you want to restrict the rights of another class of people just because you don't agree with their lifestyle, think they should go to hell, etc. that's a product of hate.
18 - roger nowosielski
zing,
you still have to argue against bestiality.
19 - zingzing
ok, it's not "hate" to deny a man's ability to fuck a duck. i don't know if that's really even possible. but now i'm certainly thinking about it!
20 - roger nowosielski
I just wanted to throw you the curve before Doug might.
21 - Cindy
Doug is all about the immorality of sex between adults...meantime he thinks torture is just dandy.
Animals cannot consent. Neither can children. The power differential precludes considering any cooperation as consent.
But the mentally damaged people we churn out as a society have trouble discerning things like this.
22 - Dan
The American Psychiatric Association once enlightened us by removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.
Now many members are contemplating removing pedophilia as well, saying "psychiatrists have argued that there is little or no proof that sex with adults is necessarily harmful to minors. Indeed, they have argued that many sexually molested children later look back on their experience as positive..."
It is a sad fact that so many gay marriage activist would be so hatefully retrograde as to support the denial of sexual expression between men and boys.
If the ignorant gay activists could overcome their selfishness to empathize with the men and boy lovers, they might recognize the same backstab they felt over the fact that California blacks voted 70% to ban gay marriage.
23 - roger nowosielski
#21 just cracks me up. Good show.
24 - roger nowosielski
But to add to #21, "mentally damaged people" can't consent either. Legally speaking, they should have no voice until they recover.
25 - Cindy
Roger, That depends on what you call mentally damaged. I consider the bulk of our society mentally damaged.
They'll recover in about 10,000 years with any luck.