Via Bilerico.
This is a really huge blow to the fight in California for same sex marriage. One positive note, according to Bilerico, the marriages that already took place will be upheld.
Bilerico has a great round-up of responses here, but here's one snippet response from the LA Gay and Lesbian Center.
Today, our Supreme Court sent a mixed and troubling message. While upholding the legal marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples who married in California, the ruling establishes that all Californians are NOT entitled to equal protection of the law. This is a sad day for our state and a setback for the cause of freedom and fairness.But it's also important to keep this in perspective. Every noble struggle known to man or woman has been filled with losses--temporary defeats that people had to endure and overcome. We must pick ourselves up and move forward, knowing that justice ultimately will prevail and the right to marry will one day be ours forever.
Fortunately, this loss comes amidst a veritable tide of progress in many other state supreme courts and legislatures--a tide that cannot be turned back, no matter today's decision. Not only are courts and legislatures recognizing that it's wrong to discriminate against any group of people by denying them the fundamental freedom to marry the one they love, but now even a majority of Americans agree. Most people in the nation now believe that same-sex couples should be treated equally under the law.
That is enormous progress and we e cannot let one election, one court case, one defeat - or even many defeats - stop us. And we must not let such challenges limit our dreams. Those who came before us and who could never imagine our successes did not give up. We owe the same dedication to those who are yet to follow.
Most importantly, we cannot afford to lose sight of the bigger picture. Ours is not a fight simply for the freedom to marry. Ours is a fight for full equality; full equality and nothing less.
While this is a huge and disappointing step backwards, I appreciate this more positive perspective on the bigger picture of this fight.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Breaking News: California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8 decision.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13910
Reading through the decision, their logic is especially disappointing.
Essentially, they claim, since the amendment doesn't forbid civil unions but rather reserves only the designation of 'marriage', its actual impact does not cut into the more general right of same-sex couples to legal recognition of their committed relationships. Thus, the scope of the resolution is too small to be properly considered a `revision` to the state constitution as opposed to an `amendment`, which is what the primary argument in the case was.
That blew me away.
My heart broke when I found this out.
Well, damn that's depressing.
I was so excited when I found out this morning (yeah I miss a lot of stuff until the last minute and beyond sometimes...) that the supreme court of CA was going to be deciding whether or not to overturn that bullshit.
The thought never crossed my mind they wouldn't. This just feels so unreal. At least as unreal as it felt when Prop 8 passed...
I've actually been camping Feministing all day, waiting to hear the good news...
:(
This is pretty awful news, but the fight isn't over.
This comment has been deleted.
^-troll.
...are you serious?
Although I would have expected an internet troll to know how to copy-paste better than HAHHAH.
...guess not.
Iowa would suggest it's not. :)
anyone else see a bridge around? Anyone? Where did this troll come from? Anyone know? Anyone?
A few resources for people...
to help collect signatures to overturn prop 8 in 2010 go to: www.yesonequality.org
to find rallies/protests in your area go to: www.dayofdecision.com/#cities
to support or get more info on larger organizations who are working with grassroots activists take a look at:
www.eqca.org
or
www.couragecampaign.org/equalityhub
Bright side: today's decision was a set back for gay marriage, but an anti-prop 8 referendum in 2010 will likely pass, and with today's precedent, it will be generally protected from this same sort of judicial sniping. So CA is in striking distance of legalizing same sex marriage legislatively/constitutionally, which will be stronger than the tenuous judicially-decreed standing it had or would have if today's decision came down differently.
I could be wrong, but I believe that the ruling by the supreme court was over if Prop 8 was an amendment to the constitution, or a revision. They did not have the power to overturn Prop 8, only to address how much power had behind it. By declaring it an amendment and not a revision, it allows the couples married during the period to remain married, and gives couples the right to civil partnerships.
It is neither fair nor just nor anything close to equality, but I do believe it was the best the supreme court could have done in the situation they were in.
That's a very interesting and important distinction
you're right. from sf chronicle: "In the end, the California Supreme Court rejected arguments that the gay marriage ban, passed by the voters last fall, was such a fundamental change that it qualified as a constitutional revision — not just an amendment — and therefore needed to first go before lawmakers."
If I recall correctly, if the CA Supreme Court had ruled that this was a revision rather than an amendment, the manner in which Prop 8 was passed (majority of voters) would mean it was null. A revision can only pass with a 2/3 vote in the leg... it cannot be passed by popular vote.
So by calling Prop 8 an amendment, it remains on the books. A revision goes through an entirely different process.
The Super big issue is that the CA Supreme Court has Ruled it is only an amendment and requires only a simple majority vote to take the rights away from ANY Minority Group. That is why this is so significant.
More info on Events In CA and Nationally at Marriageequality.org
No, that's not the ruling. The ruling limits the scope of the amendment, clarifies its status under CA law, and leaves it open to a referendum challenge. Nothing in the holding pertains to any larger issue the the legal definition of marriage in CA. Hyperbole and reactionary posturing help no one.
This demonstrates two things--and I'd love it if some more legally trained minds weighed in here--1) the California state constitution is a way fkcd up document giving way to much power to propositions & referenda as even the budget crisis demonstrates (there's a reason the federal gov't is a republic & not a direct democracy california);
2--(and this is where it'd be great if lawyers weighed in) the opinion as written below says that civil unions will & still enjoy all the rights & privileges of marriage. In essence, it seems as if the Court properly reduces marriage just down to a word, devoid of any material significance beyond civil unions, true? If that's the case then I'd argue that this is still a win, as I'm not sure the word "marriage" has any import, and that civilly committed gay couples have all the rights & responsibilities of hetero married couples.
From the opinion: "Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
From the opinion: "Proposition 8 does not entirely repeal or abrogate the aspect of a same-sex couple's state constitutional right of privacy and due process that was analyzed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases -- that is, the constitutional right of same-sex couples 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" (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 829)"
In light of this I'm really having trouble understanding why this isn't still a win??? If the very same rights & responsibilities are there for gay couples, then this seems to be a debate over a word.
I'm not sure civil unions and marriage are granted the exact same rights... either way, I can't consider "separate but equal" legislation a win.
Further, in the original Marriage cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th 757 ruling in California, it was agreed that: "...by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same-sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership - pose[s] a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitution right to marry."
Semantics may not seem like a big deal, but it's a big deal!
I hear where you're coming from but I don't get why the semantics are a big deal. To me its all about the bottom line. There's a difference between acceptance & approval. Every person has a right to be accepted for who they are (with all the rights & responsibilities, etc), but approval is something else entirely.
And the separate but equal argument, frankly, is offensive. Just take a look at Jim Crow--decrepit blacks-only schools; stank, rarely cleaned bathrooms; and filthy water fountains--and you'll see separate but equal was never equal. If I understand this ruling correctly, the Court is saying those state-level differences between civil unions & marriage which previously existed no longer exist. As far as the federal ones are concerned, even granting gay marriage wouldn't have granted those (b/cs of DOMA).
The fundamental problem here is the State has intruded on an issue, marriage, which is really a church issue...And as we know from the 1st Amendment, church & state make poor bedfellows. It will take some persuasiveness on the part of the Californian gay rights community to convince Californians that "marriage" isn't just a religious concept.
And the separate but equal argument, frankly, is offensive.
How is referring to the same institution by two different names, segregating who belongs under which label by merit of sexual orientation, and calling it equality not "seperate but equal"?
It was abhorrent then, and I don't see how any one could tolerate it now. Using the phrase was not meant to diminish what happened to African Americans in the past; rather, it was to serve as a big red flag: Pay attention to lessons learned in the past! It wasn't equality when we said it then, and it's not equality now.
Its not separate but equal because it doesn't represent the wholesale & complete political, economic & social disenfranchisement that Jim Crow represented. Jim Crow was never meant to be 'equal'. See the squalor associated with the 2nd class status afforded blacks, or the dogs sic'd on them, and the water hoses turned on them for a depiction of separate but equal.
This is not to suggest that anti-queer discrimination laws shouldn't be strengthened & that there is much work to be done overall in the queer rights arena, but comparing civil unions to Jim Crow reveals a deep misunderstanding of history...I say this because as we try to create a majority to over turn Prop 8, how we talk about it will be critically important. "Separate but equal" is a clever rhetorical ploy that is too clever by half & I don't think it works with the middle.
The largest, and easiest to understand, distinction between "marriage" and "civil unions" is that marriage in one state is given full faith and credit in another state, and by the federal government itself (remember that this only applies to "opposite marriages" because of DOMA, and so a same-sex marriage in Iowa just doesn't count in Texas); civil unions are piece-meal, state-by-state contractually augmented agreements that give couples certain rights and benefits (depending on the state, it could be all of the benefits given to married couples under state law). Anybody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is no federal civil union statute. And the federal rights that married couples get is a large bunch of stuff (whether or not it's all useful is another matter). So legally, yes, at this point there is a huge substantial difference between a marriage and a civil union, whether or not you're in a same-sex or a heterosexual union.
That's why California's (and any anti-gay-marriage organization's) argument is so weak to me: you only get that bundle of rights and protections with the legal designation "marriage"; yeah, the word itself may or may not be a big deal, but you actually get more entitlements depending on how you join your partner. And that's the textbook definition of denying people within your jurisdiction the "equal protection of the law." Whatevs. Ken Starr hates the 14th Amendment :(
So long as DOMA is in place, no state is required under Full Faith & Credit doctrine to recognize a marriage that is legal in another state. So, whether you have a civil union in Washington or a marriage in Massachusetts, Texas does not have to recognize your relationship.
States can each legislate to recognize marriages and civil unions from other states- I believe DC just did so, and hope that others will follow suit.
California's voters and legislature can do a couple of things here, and I hope they do. First, try to repeal Prop 8 - it sounds like the numbers are there. Second, change the language in all California state laws and regulations to replace the word "marriage" with something else, or change it to "marriage or civil union." If there are no legal references to marriage that would then exclude civil unions under today's opinion, there will be no difference between the two -- essentially all Californians would only be able to get "civily unioned". I like this idea only because I know it would totally piss off the bigots and nasties in Cali to find out that they can't get married anymore.
Edited to correct a huge misstatement:
"no state is required under Full Faith & Credit doctrine to recognize a same-sex marriage that is legal in another state."
I think you have a good point. In my opinion, the state shouldn't be "marrying" people, there should be civil unions for everyone. Anyone who wants to can have a religious, spiritual or secular marriage ceremony however the hell they want to do it. If benefits are going to be provided, just give them to every damn body and let everyone's who religious recognize marriage in their own way.
Of course, that would never fly with a lot of the people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds-to them, our State is married to their Church, their religious bonds are recognized as sanctified and legalized by the state, and they like it that way.
Just like with British Civil Partnership vs. Marriage, if you don't call it what it is, it's not what it is. A Californian Civil Union opens the door for it to be fiddled with into not being anything like marriage in the future. If a court like California's, which gets ELECTED, goes wing-nut Right, then it could completely destroy the equality of the Civil Union.
It's a case for "separate but equal". Having "the gays only marriage" really isn't a win.
For More information on events both in CA and around the world in a city near you please see Marriageequality.org
If that's what makes you merry, enjoy it while you can. Time is not on your side. :-)
That was addressed to CaliBeatdown, but I don't mind if Ken Starr reads it.
I know this isn't productive in any way, but I really, really hate California right now. I mean haaaate.
very disappointing
This just breaks my heart. People who love each other ought to be able to get married, to have the rights that are given to married people in our country. It's not a threat to anyone, anymore than heterosexual couples getting married is a threat. Personally, I think the government should legalize marriage for everyone, and churches should stay out of it.
I think it's almost a good thing that we have to win this one at the ballot box (and we will).
If the court just gives this to us, we'll get lazy and the right-wing will get fired up. And they'll work even harder for Nazi "strict constructionists." We need to get people off their butts and build a strong and vigorous movement for equality.
I completely agree with asseenontv. History has shown that courts without political backing can do very little. We need to convince people not only about gay marriage but about equality and gay rights in general in the process--this will help gay rights much more than a court order. If the court had ruled the other way there would've been a BACKLASH, which would not be good for the movement in the LONG RUN. Let us gear up to convince other people through the democratic process. I'm excited for 2010.
Why do people care if gays marry? I just don't understand and no one has an answer. To expend so much energy to prevent people they don't even know from being happy... it seems so sick.
The way Gavin Newsome and Barbara Boxer were talking last night on TV, it sounded like Gay Marriage would be on the ballot next year. Gay Marriage will be legalized the next time it is voted on in California.
People should gear up and organize to make it happen.
Ok, in my opinion I have to commend the Court for their efforts at damage control.
A threat that Proposition 8 posed to gay rights in California was that it could have been interpreted broadly that the intent of the people of California is to favor heterosexual marriage. Marriage amendments are a poison pill in state constitutions that conservatives use to challenge gay rights across the legal system.
From reading the opinion of the court, my take is that the court was clearly pissed off. Their opinion is a legal "fuck you" to cultural conservatives that 1) reasserts that same-sex couples are still owed equal rights and status, even if it's not called marriage and 2) sharply limits the scope of Proposition 8 to a statement about definitions. As Proposition 8 did not explicitly address rights granted under the equal protection or privacy clauses, it has nothing to do with them.
Andrew Sullivan Had some interesting things to say.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-daily-wrap-8.html
I find it so difficult to get ecstatic or depressed when a decision is made about gay marriage. The fact that it's always actors in the power structure (or the tyrannical majority) making these decisions makes me just not care anymore!
It's so arbitrary that minority rights are "granted" by a legislature, popular vote, or a court ruling. It can be legal one day, not the next. It's absolutely ridiculous, and I personally refuse to beg anyone for my rights, or legitimization of my relationships. I say, fuck gay marriage. I don't need to be assimilated into a heteronormative institution to prove my worth, or be legitimized. And I *really* am not looking for the State to be involved in my relationships at all.
Queers need to move on. Lets talk about the needs of queer youth who are being kicked out of their houses, not sharing our corporate benefits with a partner. (Oh, and if we had single-payer universal health care, we wouldn't need to share health benefits) Focus on gay marriage really reflects a place of privilege.
There's always hope.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/26/735571/-Read-page-36.-They-just-cut-Prop-8-to-the-bone.
"Voters thought that they were putting an end to gay couples being able to take a legal step that gave them the privileges and immunities of marriage. They thought that they were undoing In re Marriage Cases. What the Supreme Court said, essentially is: "OK, public, we will give you the ground that we technically have to cede -- and not a millimeter more. Except for the one thing that you have specifically forced us to change, In re Marriage Cases stands as we wrote it. Except now it's not a 4-3 decision, it's 7-0.""
This makes me sad.