California’s Proposition 8 amended the state’s Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite sex couples and a case was brought to California’s Supreme Court. In a 6 to 1 decision, the court upheld Prop 8 as law.
The big question is why the court elected to let stand the 18,000-plus same sex marriages that took effect prior to Prop. 8 becoming law.
I’m no lawyer, but does this decision – allowing the 18,000 same sex marriages to stand – cause an issue with the equal protection clause?
The story is at Fox News…
The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld same sex marriages that were already performed but upheld voters’ rights to ban gay marriage through the state constitution.
An estimated 18,000 gay couples tied the knot before the law took effect. The ruling suggests that gay couples can be afforded equivalent rights to heterosexual married couples but perhaps under a different name.
Malkin has more here and the not-so-unexpected liberal bias from the San Fransisco Chronicle here. Ed at Hot Air is fully back from holiday and has commentary. Volokh Conspiracy has more on the legal stuff.
The California Supreme Court justified its earlier decision recognizing same-sex marriages by reference to the California Constitution, which in turns draws its authority from having been enacted by the people.
So let’s get this straight.
- Prop 22 (2000) prevents California from recognizing same-sex marriage. (You forgot about that one didn’t you?) It passed by an almost 2 to 1 margin.
- In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom says “screw you” to the California voters and starts issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
- In May of 2008, liberal activists go to a courtroom and get Prop 22 invalidated.
- Prop 8 goes on the ballot.
- Liberal activists go to a courtroom to block the proposition from going on the ballot.
- Prop 8 passes by about 4.5 percent. A simple majority is all that is required to change California’s Constitution.
- Liberal activists go to a courtroom to invalidate the amendment to the California Constitution (Prop 8). They do not succeed.
Are we seeing the theme here? Same-sex marriage advocates understand they have not been able to win the normal way, so they just keep their efforts to the courts, where they only need to rely on a few liberal justices to swing their way.
In the case of Prop 8, they bullied people into voting their way. How else can you explain the 10 point drop in support for the propositions? OK, maybe opinion changed, but what caused the opinion to change – you’ve got to ask the question.