The evolution of gay marriage rights in California has been an exhausting story to follow. Just when I think that gay couples in California will finally have their rights recognized, I am sadly let down. Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage in California, is not only an embarrassing display of the intolerance and ignorance in this country, it is a heartbreaking blow to the families it keeps separated.
On August 4th, 2010 federal judge Vaughn Walker overturned Prop 8 with the ruling that it is unconstitutional. Millions of people in America, myself included, enjoyed this wonderful, temporary, victory. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed Judge Walker’s ruling and decided that Prop 8 will stand until the case is heard in court in December.
While I have strong views against Prop 8, I do understand the need for it to stand until the appeal is heard in December. What I do not understand is why any of this is necessary in the first place. The California Supreme Court ruled that a state law that bans same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and Proposition 8 was the response to that ruling. In my opinion, the California Supreme Court had it right and the story should have ended there. I think that a ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional because it goes against the equal protection clause. There is no legitimate state interest in keeping gay couples from getting married so it will not pass through any level of scrutiny. The equal protection clause says that, 'no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...' and if this is the case, than homosexuals=persons and California=State and laws=marriage laws, so the equation should read.."California shall not deny any Homosexual within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws of marriage." Interchaning words within state/federal constitutions provides clearer examples of how the law should be read.
NY Times
Sadly, there a many in this country that feel that other people's rights can be put up for a vote, especially minorities. The fact of the matter is that is unconstitutional and totally against what our founders supported. Anytime you put up minority rights for a vote a majority is going to deny them those rights. When Loving v. Virginia came down disapproval for Interracial marriage was in the high 60's and many thought it should be illegal. If in 1920, instead of a constitutional amendment we put women's suffrage on the ballot, I highly doubt it would have passed. We are not a direct democracy for a reason, we despise mob rule.
ReplyDeleteThis is just another thing for America to be embarrassed about in the future. Today we say, how could we have denied women the right to vote? Eventually we will say how could we have denied homosexuals the right to marry? This cycle is totally unnecessary, we should be able to learn from our past mistakes.
ReplyDelete