California Supreme Court Overturns Statute Banning Gay Marriage

The California Supreme Court struck down a statute (passed through a voter initiative) defining marriage as "between a man and a woman." You can read the opinion here: In Re Marriage Cases [pdf].

[I'm only half way through reading the 100+ page opinion, but this is what I have surmised thus far. If there is additional relevant info, I will update this post later.]

The Court defined the issue before it as, "whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a 'marriage' whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a 'domestic partnership.'" Essentially, as I read it, this is a really long-winded way of saying, "Can the state grant the same rights and responsibilities to both gay and straight couples but call their respective legal relationships by two different names.

In deciding the case, the court first established that the "right to marry" is a fundamental right protected by the California Constitution and "encompass[es] the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that ... may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process." The court went on to note that this fundamental right includes "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." The Court felt that making different designations for same-sex couples did not accord them the same dignity and respect the law accorded opposite-sex couples. The Court also noted that same-sex couple's rights under the CA domestic partnership law were not identical to the rights of married couples.

The Court then went on to analyze the case under the Equal Protection Clause and applied strict scrutiny (The state must have a compelling interest and its chosen method must be necessary to serve that interest). The Court felt that the exclusion of same-sex couples from "marriage" was not necessary to protect the rights and interests of opposite-sex married couples. They also argued that prohibiting same-sex couples from using the designation of marriage to describe their relationship would cast doubt on the sincerity of their commitment. Third, the court said that excluding gay couples from marriage would likely be viewed as official state disdain for gays and/or gay couples. Related to their third point, the Court said that the distinction would likely be viewed as making gay couples "second class citizens."

This matter is not going away just because the CA Supreme Court has rulled. A group called Protect Marriage has already submitted the necessary paperwork [pdf] to the CA Secretary of State to get a voter initiative on the next ballot that would define marriage as between one man and one woman in the California Constitution (essentially the only way to overturn the CA Supreme Court ruling).

[Hat Tip to The Moderate Voice]