California Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
Updated: The California Supreme Court has struck down the state’s ban on gay marriages in a 4-3 ruling.
The court ruled the California Constitution gives gay couples the right to marry, making the state the second to permit such unions, the Associated Press reports. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has also found a right to same-sex marriage.
The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the San Jose Mercury News reports. “The ruling marks a watershed moment in the conflict over gay marriage, with the most influential state supreme court in the nation, dominated by Republican appointees, ruling in favor of gay rights advocates in the state with the largest gay population,” the story says.
Supporters of gay marriage cried and celebrated as they learned of the decision.
The California court noted in its opinion (PDF) that the state already has domestic partnership legislation that gives gay couples essentially the same rights as married couples. But the court said the difference in the official names of the relationships was suspect.
The court said a ban on interracial marriage would be unconstitutional even if a state statute had allowed such unions under an alternative name, such as “transracial union.” Similarly, the domestic partnership scheme denies gay couples equal protection of the laws, the opinion said.
“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,” the court said.
California voters approved the 2000 ban in a measure that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The court used a strict standard of scrutiny to evaluate the law and said such scrutiny should be applied to statutes that impose differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation.
In footnote 52 of the opinion, the court said its decision does not mean the constitutional right to marry applies to polygamous or incestuous relationships. “Past judicial decisions explain why our nation’s culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry,” the opinion said.
A dissent written by Justice Marvin Baxter, joined by Justice Ming Chin, chastised the majority for its “exercise in legal jujitsu” that created a constitutional right “from whole cloth” and defeated the people’s will. “Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously oversteps the judicial power,” he wrote.
Justice Carol Corrigan wrote a separate dissent.
George talked about how he reached his decision in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “There are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe,” he told the newspaper.
Updated on 5/19/2008 to include George’s interview with the Los Angeles Times.
