• Home
  • News
  • California Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Constitutional Law

California Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Posted May 26, 2009 11:09 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter referendum banning gay marriage in the state, but has ruled that some 18,000 marriages performed before the initiative passed will remain valid.

Gay rights activists plan to seek repeal of the referendum in a new initiative effort, possibly as early as next year, the Los Angeles Times reports. The voter ban on gay marriages known as Proposition 8 passed by a narrow margin of 52 percent last November.

A year ago, the California Supreme Court had found a constitutional right to same-sex marriages. Voters passed Proposition 8 six months later.

The opinion today by Chief Justice Ronald George said the initiative was not a far-reaching constitutional revision requiring either a two-thirds vote of the legislature or a constitutional convention. He also said the ban did not unconstitutionally take away an inalienable right, an argument advanced by state Attorney General Jerry Brown.

The only dissenter was Justice Carlos Moreno, who wrote that the initiative was an illegal constitutional revision, according to the Los Angeles Times account.

The decision had been expected, although at least one publication had predicted there would be two dissenters.

Additional coverage:

Washington Post: "California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban"

New York Times: "California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage"

Comments

1.

BigTime
May 26, 2009 11:29 AM CST

Shameful.  Future generations will look at this decision as barbaric.

Flag this comment

2.

B. McLeod
May 26, 2009 12:12 PM CST

How future generations look at the decision will depend upon which way the whole gay subculture thing goes.  My guess is, most will look at it as uninteresting.  Much ado about very little.  Californians bound and determined to enter into same sex marriages can drive to Iowa and take care of it.

Flag this comment

3.

M. Kay
May 26, 2009 12:22 PM CST

The court’s job is not to decide the morality of the law, but whether it violates the California state constitution. Their job is not to alter social practices or to change people’s views, but to interpret law to the best of their ability. It is the law that is unfair (though apparently legal), not the court’s decision.

Flag this comment

4.

BigTime
May 26, 2009 12:22 PM CST

And what happens to them when they drive back to CA?

Flag this comment

5.

B. McLeod
May 26, 2009 12:29 PM CST

When they drive back to CA (if they make that misjudgment), I’m guessing that whole “full faith and credit” thingy will cover them.

Flag this comment

6.

T.R.
May 26, 2009 12:38 PM CST

This issue is shifting very quickly with the upcoming generations that the LGBT-rights will get there eventually.  Soon, enough states will allow for same-sex marriage, that the federal DOMA will need to be revisited, or SCOTUS will just do a Loving v. Virginia thing.

Flag this comment

7.

BigTime
May 26, 2009 12:44 PM CST

Nope.  The full faith and credit thing won’t work.  If it did, a married gay couple in MA, CT, Iowa, Canada, VT, wherever, would be considered married in every state in the union.  That is not the case.

Flag this comment

8.

JMS
May 26, 2009 1:44 PM CST

My wife and I were married in Canada nearly six years ago, and our marriage is certainly not recognized in our home State of Illinois.  I’m quite certain that will change—probably within the next 5-10 years.

Flag this comment

9.

B. McLeod
May 26, 2009 3:11 PM CST

But Canada is not one of these United States.  I am curious as to which states (if any) have actually taken the position that they will refuse to recognize a marriage that was legally performed in another U.S. state.

Flag this comment

10.

PJ
May 26, 2009 3:20 PM CST

Well, every state that’s passed a “defense of marriage act”—which is most of them—have taken the position that they won’t recognize a legally performed same-sex marriage from another state or country. Mixed sex couples married in Canada, etc. are recognized as married in the US, but unless you live in one of the handful of US states that have legalized same-sex marriage, your legal marriage is not recognized. And its not recognized by the US federal government either. You get the rights and privileges and responsibilities that a state offers, but not those that the federal government offers. So you may have a legal Iowa marriage, but you can’t file your income tax jointly and if your same-sex spouse is on your medical insurance, the federal government taxes it as INCOME. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Flag this comment

11.

JMS
May 26, 2009 3:32 PM CST

Here’s a handy chart:  http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-SAME_SEX_MAP_0905.html

Flag this comment

12.

B. McLeod
May 26, 2009 11:30 PM CST

Thank you.  I see now that this may be a deeper question than I had thought, and not as readily resolvable to the satisfaction of all the reasonable people directly concerned.

Flag this comment

13.

mohammed
May 27, 2009 8:16 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

14.

Rt Hon
May 27, 2009 10:07 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

15.

Rt Hon
May 27, 2009 10:08 AM CST

supra repl “our” with “are”

Flag this comment

16.

B. McLeod
May 28, 2009 12:32 AM CST

Yeah, there you go.  Those two words don’t mean the same thing.  I assume you know that “right honorable” is a euphemism used in legislative bodies to mean “stupid idiot,” so that members can insult one another with proper decorum.  You have chosen an apt handle.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.