- Texas man arrested for powder-letter hoax
- Islamic State opens ‘marriage bureau’ for single jihadists
- Drone almost blocks California firefighting planes
- Tornado rips off roofs, downs trees near Boston
- GOP: Environmental rules keeping agents from accessing border
- John Kerry: Millions displaced by religious fighting in 2013
- Federal appeals court rules against Virginia’s gay marriage ban
- White House says Russia ‘losing’ war in Ukraine
- Hamas turns to North Korea for weapons deal, Iran for money
- Syrian casualties surge as jihadis consolidate
Calif. court upholds gay marriage ban
Question of the Day
Both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage said Tuesday’s California Supreme Court decision upholding Proposition 8, the second defeat in a row for gay-marriage supporters, may have ended the legal battle on the ballot initiative but not the fight over the issue.
In a 6-1 decision, the court rejected arguments that the November ballot measure amending the state constitution to state that marriage is the union of one man and one woman violated the “inalienable” rights of same-sex couples to marry. The justices, however, did let stand the same-sex marriages performed before the initiative’s passage.
“The identification of a right as ‘inalienable’ has never been understood to mean that such right is exempt from any limitation or to preclude the adoption of a constitutional amendment that restricts the scope of such a right,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George said in the majority opinion.
The 136-page ruling was the second recent setback for gay-marriage supporters, after the New Hampshire House rejected a proposal to put religious-conscience protections in the state’s bill. Gov. John Lynch had said he would veto the bill without such a provision. The setbacks followed victories in the supreme courts of Iowa and Connecticut and the legislatures of Vermont and Maine.
Both sides of the gay-marriage debate took what they could from the decision, which ends the state court fight, though they agreed that California’s battle over gay marriage may spread to new venues.
The pro-gay Courage Campaign announced immediately that it would move to place a gay-marriage initiative on the 2010 California ballot.
“While we are pleased that the court recognized the legal marriages of 18,000 same-sex couples married in 2008, we are saddened by the Prop 8 decision,” Chairman Rick Jacobs said in a statement. “But we don’t have time to mourn the failure of the state court to restore marriage equality to California. It’s time to go on offense.”
On the other side, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called the exemption for the existing marriages “a ticking time bomb” that could give a federal court an opening to declare Proposition 8 as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“You have people in the same state being treated differently, so you have an equal protection clause challenge in the making,” Mr. Perkins said.
But proponents of traditional marriage generally praised the decision and commended the court for obeying the will of the people.
“We’re grateful this court did not overturn the civil rights of all Californians to amend our own constitution,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the prime movers behind Proposition 8. “The 7 million Californians who worked hard to protect marriage as the union of husband and wife are breathing easier today.”
Conservatives were prepared to launch a recall effort against the California Supreme Court justices if Proposition 8 had been overturned. While gratified by the ruling, supporters of traditional marriage said they were nonetheless troubled by the court’s decision to recognize the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed last year in the five-month window between June and November.
“Unfortunately, the court chose to ignore the plain meaning of Proposition 8 and will force state recognition of same-sex ‘marriage’ licenses issued last year,” Mr. Perkins said. “The court’s recognition of these ‘marriages’ clearly seeds the ground for a possible legal battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.”
In its decision, the court justified its holding by saying constitutional amendments are not considered retroactive unless they are clearly written that way, which the justices said Proposition 8 was not.
About the Author
Valerie Richardson covers politics and the West from Denver. She can be reached at email@example.com.
- Westerners call for oversight to combat federal land managers
- Protesters rally in Colorado to support Israel's fight with Hamas
- Plagiarism scandal threatens Senate campaign of Montana Democrat John Walsh
- Conservative groups decry Democrats' 'war on women' tactic
- Act would create tax-free savings accounts for the disabled
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
- White House says Russia 'losing' war in Ukraine
- Hillary Clinton: Forget Obama, George W. Bush made her 'proud to be an American'
- D.C. seeks to stay judge's order allowing gun owners to carry in public
- Illegal immigrants demand representation in White House meetings
- Iraqi Christians rally at White House: 'Obama, Obama, where are you?'
- EPSTEIN: All IRS roads lead to the archivist
- Border surge puts Obama legacy on immigration at stake
- Inside the Beltway: Republican posse rides out to fire Harry Reid
- Tactical advantage: Russian military shows off impressive new gear
- KUHNER: Will Russia-Ukraine be Europe's next war?
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq