Proposition 8 remains in effect
The California Supreme Court has made a much-anticipated ruling on the rights of individuals to marry. Their decision was to uphold the state’s previous Prop 8 decision to ban gay marriage.
John Schwartz reports for the New York Times that the California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8 runs counter to a growing trend in other states that allow the practice. Future marriages of this nature will not be allowed in California after this ruling, but couples already married in the state before the Proposition 8 ruling will retain their married status. There were 18,000 same-sex couples married in California between May 2008 (when gay marriage was made lawful) and November 2008 (when Proposition 8 was initially passed).
California currently will allow civil unions, which according to Chief Justice Ronald George grants the ability to “choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.” The argument is that civil union essentially grants couples all the same rights as those who are married, but there is far from universal agreement on this matter. Among other things, there are questions as to whether certain types of insurance apply to both individuals in a domestic partnership, and whether financial matters like wills, tax provisions and pension benefits work in a similar fashion. In terms of short-term consumer finance, however, access to a loan company or fulfilling the “I need my cash now” requirement are not restricted in any way by the California Supreme Court decision on Prop 8.
The heat came down immediately
The California Supreme Court decision marks yet another round in battle over the issue. Opponents of Proposition 8 are already planning the next counter-initiative, following a process granted to citizens by the law of the land. Experts predict these will be fighting to make the ballot as early as 2010.
Supporters of same-sex marriage have expressed their argument that Proposition 8’s changing of the California constitution was “so fundamental that the initiative was not an amendment to the constitution but a revision,” in that it totally reworked a core constitutional principle. If it is a revision, it can only be decided with a two-thirds vote of the California legislature, by law. However, it has been rare that courts in California overturn initiatives (like Prop 8) because they’re later determined to be revisions. It’s a long shot at best, say legal scholars.
Labels and outsiders
Justices who had initially voiced their support of same-sex marriage seemed unwilling to overturn the votes cast by Californians. Civil unions appeared to be a middle ground that these justices wanted this time. Again, the claim is that the arrangement would be different than marriage in name only. Schwartz writes that Justice Kennard suggested that rights to civil unions hadn’t decreased; all that had changed, Kennard said, was “the label of marriage.”
Yet this was unacceptable to Proposition 8 opponents. Their claim as that the new label would affix “outsider status” to same-sex couples by order of the California State constitution.
As other states consider the matter of whether same-sex marriage should be made lawful, an April CBS/New York Times poll leaned toward liberalization. In that poll, 42 percent surveyed favored the marriages, which the poll indicates is up 21 percent from the time of the 2004 election. The favorable respondents trended toward those under 40 years of age (57 percent) versus those over 40 (31 percent).
However, it’s likely that public opinion polls expressing the opposite sentiment can easily be found. It’s not an exact science, but until people can respond to polls via their cocoon-like media devices during their favorite virtual-reality reality television program, it’s the best public opinion indicator short of election that we’ve got. Gotta get to people in their pods. One way or the other, it’s a battle for hearts and minds that will never end. So long as there’s a cause, there will be sides that fight. Gay marriage, abortion, states’ rights vs. the power of the federal government, socialized medicine, payday loans in Carson from a loan company vs. bank loans, et al. It’s what humans do. We survive through struggle, through fight.
Chief Justice George’s statement
“Our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution,” she wrote. “Our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.” As it stands, the California Supreme Court did not see enough constitutionally-supported reason for them to overturn the Proposition 8 initiative (revision?). That doesn’t mean we won’t be hearing much more about this in the future.
Related Videos:
