One more step along the path

[hrj]

Yay for the California State Supreme Court.

Still working on the whole finding-the-woman-of-my-dreams side of the equation.

Comments

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

Nice that they show a bit of sense. I haven't read about the whole ruling, but it came across in the news as I was coming home from the school this morning. Very cool. Hope it stands up and the US Supreme Court doesn't try to stomp on it ...

[aryanhwy.livejournal.com]

Yay indeed!

[wulfsdottir.livejournal.com]

Here's hoping it sticks this time. This "civil union" nonsense is just "separate but equal" in a different wrapper, and it's past time to be shut of it.

[dr-zrfq.livejournal.com]

I think SCOTUS will leave it alone. The most I expect is a case in the next four years to deal with issues arising from a couple from CA, MA, VT, NJ, NH, CT, or a foreign country, traveling in a state that considers their marriage (or civil union) illegal.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

And that was, to some extent, at the heart of the ruling -- equating it to "separate but equal". Another interesting thing was that they explicitly based the ruling on the unacceptability of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation (rather than attacking it sideways as "gender discrimination"). They state outright that sexual orientation is a "suspect classification" for which the legal test is "strict scrutiny" rather than "rational basis". Curiously enough, however, the core element of the case isn't about the legal/administrative difference between opposite-sex marriage and same-sex domestic partnership -- it's about the legality of labeling the two institutions by different names and not allowing the word "marriage" to be used for the same-sex version. In other words, the court concludes that the legal right to use the word "marriage" is, itself, a critical constitutional right. It's a lovely little piece of writing (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_9269123), that decision.

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

Though it remains to be seen whether the one step forward will be followed by two steps back in November. Regressive amendments have done distressingly well to date.

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

The US Supreme Court shouldn't be able to touch it - and may not even want to. The decision is expressly based on interpretation of the California state constitution, not the US constitution. There's also a tradition of deferring family issues to the states, and support for that has generally been strongest among those whose view of the family is narrowest.

[mariedeblois.livejournal.com]

w00ty w00t w00t!

Bonne chance.

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

Okay. I don't really pay TOO much attention to all the details, but it is certainly good news for our friends who are gay.

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

Ah. Well, not having studied these things ... <g> I am glad for those whom it affects, though. It's about freakin' time.

[scotica.livejournal.com]

As I read it, the court does *not* conclude that the legal right to use the word "marriage" is, itself, a critical constitutional right -- in fact it explains that it doesn't have to decide that at all in this case: "We need not decide in this case whether the name 'marriage' is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry..."

Rather, what the court ruled was that the legal right to use _the same word as everybody else_ (whatever that word may be) is, itself, a critical constitutional right. So if California uses "marriage" for opposite-sex couples, it must use "marriage" for same-sex couples. But this ruling, at least, would not prevent the state from choosing to use "civil union" instead of "marriage" -- as long as it used "civil union" (and not "marriage") for _everyone_, not just the same-sex couples.

And, having read the legalese (thanks for the link!), I have to agree that it is a lovely little piece of writing, and a lovely, well thought out ruling.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the actual nature of the decision isn't quite the same as how it's being talked about -- I didn't really have time to post nuances on my lunch hour. To some extent, this decision was only about what legally-recognized-two-party-relationships are called officially, not about the existence of those relationships and who can enter into them. In one sense, the essence of the decision is, "Yes, the use of the specific word 'marriage' is important."

[scotica.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, a legal commentator on TV (not sure if she was a lawyer, professor, and/or judge) suggested that even if such an amendment should be passed, it would still run afoul of this ruling. I think her opinion was based on this part of the ruling:

"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

So now I'm curious to hear other opinions about this bit.

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

Note that this specifies the statutory initiative process, i.e., ordinary law like Prop. 22 of late and unlamented memory. Constitutional amendments are different - in theory, anything in the constitution can be revoked by amendment. It's a technicality, sure, but lawyers love technicalities.

Depending on how the amendment is worded (and, of course, whether it passes) it could make for interesting results, though. If the constitution is amended merely to say that same-sex couples can't be 'married', then today's decision could be interpreted to require under equal protection that no one be 'married' under state law. Bizarre - but possible. Since the amendment has already been submitted, it can't have been written to anticipate today's decision.

Apart from the marriage issue, however, I find it interesting to note the size of the sledgehammer taken to the mosquito. Sexual orientation as a 'suspect characteristic'? Strict scrutiny? That's powerful stuff, and it's not limited to the case at hand. It's precedent now.

Yes, the rabid homophobes have good reason to be frothing today . . .

[kareina.livejournal.com]

Yay! They've cleared up half of my problem with those people who try to define marriage as "one man and one woman". Perhaps someday they will clear up my other complaint: the number of people permitted to thus commit themselves to one another.

Good luck finding the woman of your dreams! I'm still looking for one of those myself, but my search is complicated by the fact that I'd want her to love and share the men in my life too...

[mbumby.livejournal.com]

Hurrah! (But here I am in Michigan, which has been doing its level best to insert its head... well, you know.)