- Unbeliebable: White House turns Bieber petition response into immigration screed
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador’s visa, but says law is ‘advisory’
- Mich. judge to laughing convicted killer: ‘I hope you die in prison’
- Man charged in Kansas City-area highway shootings
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
- Fla. man charged with killing 16-month-old son to play Xbox undisturbed
- Drones from the deep: Pentagon develops ocean-floor attack robots
- Michigan mayor slaps back atheists’ try to erect ‘reason station’ at city hall
- PHILLIPS: Where is the conservative establishment?
- 7.5-magnitude earthquake shakes southern Mexico
WETZSTEIN: Look beyond joy of today
On Monday, California issued its first marriage licenses to gay couples. Thousands of happy men and women soon will avail themselves of this right, which was identified and affirmed by a 4-3 majority of the California Supreme Court on May 15.
I would like to address one of the longer threads in this landmark ruling - its long-term impact. There will be two kinds of consequences - intended and unintended, and history will determine which will be most significant.
The 121-page majority opinion was thoroughly upbeat and clear about its intended consequences. Legalizing marriage for gay couples should open the door for them "to live a happy, meaningful and satisfying life" as full members of society, the court said.
It should ensure that their "official family relationship [is] accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples," the court said. And it should end other "unequal treatment" of gay couples - they shouldn't have to register for "second-class" domestic partnerships, for instance.
The California court also was clear about what its ruling wouldn't do.
Legalizing gay marriage "will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage," since married gays will have the same obligations and duties as other married couples, it said.
The ruling "will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person. ... [N]o religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs."
As for heterosexuals, "*pposite-sex couples will continue to enjoy precisely the same constitutional rights they traditionally have possessed, unimpaired by our recognition" of gay marriage, it said.
Moreover, legalizing gay marriage "will not deprive any opposite-sex couple or their children of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes, but simply will make the benefit of the marriage designation available to same-sex couples and their children," the court said, quoting New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye: "There are enough marriage licenses to go around for everyone."
The dissenting opinion from California Supreme Court Associate Justices Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin wasn't nearly as sanguine about the ruling's impact.
It is a "cataclysmic transformation of this venerable institution," they wrote. Quoting the New Jersey Supreme Court, the dissenters said: "We cannot escape the reality that the shared societal meaning of marriage - passed down through the common law into our statutory law - has always been the union of a man and a woman. To alter that meaning would render a profound change in the public consciousness of a social institution of ancient origin."
In my reading of the decision, the majority opinion didn't seem to look beyond today's celebrations.
For now, the die is cast. Many gay couples are laughing with joy today: Their long waits are over. Many gay activists are celebrating, too: Today marks the payoff of years of strategizing and fundraising, backed by determination and personal conviction.
But what will be the outcomes of this historic decision?
Will the court's intended consequences prevail? Or will unintended - unforeseen - consequences overshadow the court's expectations?
If a venerable institution of bedrock importance undergoes a "cataclysmic transformation," it seems irrational to think that the consequences will be (a) knowable at the start and (b) completely beneficial for society.
About the Author
Cheryl Wetzstein covers family and social issues as a national reporter for The Washington Times. She has been a reporter for three decades, working in New York City and Washington, D.C. Since joining The Washington Times in 1985, she has been a features writer, environmental and consumer affairs reporter, and assistant business editor.
Beginning in 1994, Mrs. Wetzstein worked exclusively ...
- Judge voids N. Dakota's 'heartbeat' abortion law
- Family, agency in custody battle over sick daughter
- Values group wins court round over use of gay marriage photo
- Gay-photo lawsuit partially dismissed
- Some gay activists fear same-sex supporters are becoming intolerant
Latest Blog Entries
- Gay therapy ban author seeks Calif. House seat
- Transgender 'bathroom law' gets 5,000 more signatures
- Pro-life, stem-cell bill signed into law by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback
- N. Dakota lawmakers approve tough abortion bill
- Pope Benedict XVI's successor should allow priests to get a new title: Husband, poll finds
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- Justice at last: 'Evil woman' outed for grabbing girl's game ball
- EDITORIAL: Mark Warner running scared?
- Hillary swoons at admitted illegal immigrant: 'Wow,' you're 'incredibly brave'
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- Army goes to war with National Guard, seizes Apache attack helicopters
- CHARLES: Holder's undermining of the law deserving of contempt
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.