The Republic of T.

Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal.

Speechless

By now, it’s not news, I’m sure. But equality won a victory in California today.

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation’s most populous state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices’ 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco’s monthlong same-sex wedding march.

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

There’s more, of course. I’m going to try and get through as much of it as I can, but at some point I’m going to have to find a quiet spot in the office, to cry. (I called the hubby to tell him, but we couldn’t talk for long, because both of us wanted to retain some composure.)

I can’t help it. I’m going to be emotional about this. It doesn’t directly affect my family, but for the moment it gives me hope.

Of course there are some realities to consider.

  • The ruling strikes down California’s ban on same-sex marriage as violating the “fundamental constitutional right to form family relationship,” per the California state constitution.
  • The ruling may be overturned if Californians vote in November for a state constutinoal amendment banning same-sex marriage. The other side has turned in 1.1. million signatures, and officials have to determine if enough of them are valid
  • This only affects California. I don’t know what the likelihood is that this would make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Defense of Marriage Act, as it stands:
    • prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and
    • permits the states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in or recognized by other states.

Here’s the ruling.

Read this doc on Scribd: S147999

Here are some of the passages that stood out to me.

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. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

~~

…As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme
that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender
and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1)  the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.

~~~

…Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

Of course, these all warrant further discussion, and there’s much, much more, which I’ll get to in another post.

3 Comments

  1. We can only hope that the voters in CA are more inclined toward equality than the people who signed the petitions.

    Go, California!

  2. Pingback: California’s Supreme Court rules state’s same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional « Bisexuality Revamped

  3. I did a happy dance in my office when I read that! AWESOME!
    granted there are more fights to fight but man its nice to have some good news…

%d bloggers like this: