The California Supreme Court ‘s decision on Proposition 8 is out. As expected by most court observers, the court upheld the measure and ruled that it does not invalidate already performed same-sex marriages.
In summary, we conclude that Proposition 8 constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment (rather than an impermissible constitutional revision), does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and is not invalid under the “inalienable rights†theory proffered by the Attorney General. We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid.
Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must “find its expression at the ballot box.â€
In other words, the same Court that tried to find a new right to same-sex marriage in the state’s consitituion last year could do so much to redefine marriage and now invites a rematch at the ballot box until the desired result is reached.
Regarding the surviving same-sex marriages: I don’t what could have been an equitable decision. I feel for the couples in that situation and don’t blame them for availing themselves of the law as it was created by the courts last year. But their tenuous and vulnerable situation was the result of a court that refused to stay its own decision, knowing full well that the issue was going to be decided at the ballot box later that year.
The Court created the dilemma of what to do with the already preformed 18,000 same-sex marriages at the time Prop 8 was passed. The Court was not going to admit its mistake by voiding those ceremonies. Plus, as California is surely going to face another proposition to recognize SSM, those 18,000 couples will serve as a great campaign tool for the upcoming campaigns.
UPDATE: The Church offers a response:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.
Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.
No related posts.
Tags: proposition 8, same sex marriage
-
I think that “In other words, the same Court that tried to find a new right to same-sex marriage in the state’s constitution last year could do so much to redefine marriage and now invites a rematch at the ballot box until the desired result is reached” is a bit unfair. As i understand California law regarding constitutional changes, the bit you’re commenting on is simply an accurate description of the process. It sounds more to me like the court is stating that the judicial, legislative, and executive branches are all closed as an avenue to any changes on this issue, and that any such changes must come via the ballot box. (And, given the way that California’s constitution essentially encourages matches and rematches at the ballot box, it’ll likely happen, multiple times in both directions. Populist-era state constitutions have some real issues.)
Seriously, though, you oughtta be happy with a win, and not go around seeing ghosts behind every tree you pass.
-
David B –
You’re right that it’s an accurate statement of the process and the court correctly points out that the only alternative is at the ballot box.
I guess that given the court’s decision last year, I found it hard to take seriously its recognition that the ballot box was the only recourse when that should have been the decision last year.
I agree the populist/proposition nature of CA is a mess.
I’m glad they came to the decision they did today but I don’t think it’s anything to be happy about. It’s a tough and divisive issue that is not going anywhere soon.
-
The political scientist in me just finds all of the fun to follow and observe.
-
@Chris H.: My sentiments precisely, except replace “political scientist” with “sociologist”.
(Think about it—uncontrolled social scientific trials with human subjects! What could be cooler?)
-
David B,
Sociology is a decent alternative.
-
David:
Interesting article in today’s Washington Post entitled “‘The Mormons Are Coming!’; Supporters of Same-Sex Marriage Trumpet the Church’s Work Against It”. (See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803573_pf.html.)
While the article doesn’t raise any substantial new issues, it does provide a good overview of the arguments bouncing around there regarding the LDS Church’s involvement in the marriage equality/gay marriage issue.
Jeff
-
Thanks Jeff. I did see that last night and hope to post on it later.
-
David H. S.,
Good to see that you are reading the Washington Post. I think that it might be good for you.
. -
Puhleeze!
I check it out everyday. It’s my hometown paper and the most reasonable (usually) of the big Lefties.
And of course, as they say, it’s always good to know what the enemy is thinking.
-
I like to call my Post reading my current events research (important for a poli sci teacher). Not sure how to explain my time reading about the Redskins and American Idol.
I am all about the “know your enemy” concept (and not just because Rage and Against the Machine and, now, Green Day have good songs about it). That is why I lurk around here.
-
Another interesting column from a publication that is generally not known to be liberal — U.S. News and World Report. John Aloysius Farrell wrote the column entitled “How Far Will Mormons Go to Fight Gay Marriage?”
You can see it at: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/john-farrell/2009/05/29/how-far-will-mormons-go-to-fight-gay-marriage.html
Comments are now closed.
11 comments