(UPDATE 1:15 PM: Equality wins!)
(NOTE: There will be real-time coverage at my place.)
At 1PM ET, California’s Supreme Court will on whether same-sex couples may marry in the state. The official document announcing the pending ruling is here. The question:
Does California’s statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violate the California Constitution by denying equal protection of the laws on the basis of sexual orientation or sex, by infringing on the fundamental right to marry, or by denying the right to privacy and freedom of expression?The Governator opposes the current constitutional amendment ballot initiative that will go to voters in November, and has said that he will abide by the court’s decision. An impact of this ruling, if it is in favor of equality, is how the presidential candidates will respond, since both Clinton and Obama have clung to a life raft of “marriage is between a man and a woman” for religious reasons and/or letting the states decide the civil matter, which naturally brings up the precedent of Loving v. Virginia. One can only hope that we don’t see the kind of punt we witnessed in New York in 2006, though the legislature in California has already shown its ability to pass marriage equality legislation.
Here is interesting info emailed to me by The Williams Institute, a research center at UCLA School of Law. It’s a national think tank dedicated to research on issues of sexual orientation law and public policy.
• As of 2006, there are an estimated 109,000 same-sex couples in California (2006 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau).
• More than 41,000 California couples have registered as domestic partners, approximately 38% of all same-sex couples (Williams Institute).
• California same-sex couples are raising an estimated 70,000 children (Amicus Brief, Badgett and Gates)
• Marriage equality would add approximately $123 million to the California budget in the first three years that marriage is open to same-sex couples (Badgett and Sears, Stanford Law and Policy Review)
• Demographic characteristics of same-sex registered partners in California (Carpenter and Gates, forthcoming in Demography):
• Male same-sex registered partners in California have been partnered for an average of 12 years.
• Female same-sex registered partners in California have been partnered for an average of 9 years.
• The average age of same-sex registered partners is 44.
• A third of female registered same-sex couples are raising children.
Links:
* Amicus Brief (Gates and Badgett)
* Badgett CA State Senate Testimony
* Putting a Price on Equality: The Impact of Same-sex Marriage on California’s Budget (Badgett and Sears, Stanford Law and Policy Review)
* The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership on Business and the Economy (Gates and Badgett)
Meanwhile, the wingnuts in the state of North Carolina have introduced another marriage amendment bill. More below the fold.
North Carolina’s constitution is under attack — 2008 edition
Will gubernatorial candidatesPat McCrory and Beverly Perdue weigh in on Sen. Jim Forrester’s (R) latest attempt to enshrine discrimination into my state’s constitution? Senate Bill 1608 was introduced by the Gaston lawmaker one day into the legislative session. Clearly he has different priorities than most of NC’s residents. Equality NC:
Just one day into the 2008 legislative session, Sen. Jim Forrester (R-Gaston) once again filed an anti-LGBT, anti-marriage state constitutional amendment. A similar bill is expected in the state House. Equality North Carolina is working to defeat these attempts to write discrimination into our state constitution.You can send a message to legislators through Equality North Carolina’s web site:The proposed bill mirrors those introduced in the last four sessions, which Equality North Carolina and our allies have successfully blocked.
“We can’t let our guard down this year,” said Ian Palmquist, Executive Director. “The far right would like nothing better than to put this amendment on the ballot and turn out radical conservative voters for the 2008 elections. We can’t let Sen. Forrester and his cronies play politics with our lives, our rights, and our families.”
The amendment would not only prohibit same-sex marriage-which is already not recognized in the state under current law-but would also ban any other form of relationship recognition for same-sex couples. In fact, the language is so broad it could prevent private companies from offering partner health benefits.
Equality North Carolina is actively lobbying against the amendment and is calling on supporters to contact their legislators.
http://eqfed.org/campaign/amendment08
The sponsors of Senate Bill 1608:
Forrester (R) (Primary)
Allran (R)
Apodoca (R)
Berger, P. (R)
Bingham (R)
Blake (R)
Brock (R)
Brown (R)
Brunsetter (R)
Goodall (R)
Hartsell (R)
Hoyle (D)
Hunt (R)
Jacumin (R)
Pittenger (R)
Preston (R)
Smith (R)
Tillman (R)
My legal Canadian marriage is sowing the seeds of societal destruction in NC once again.
Related:
* Not too much to ask: respect taxpaying LGBT citizens in NC
* Misanthropy on the Mall
* NC: homophobic fact-free rant of conservative state senator’s activist wife exposed
* North Carolina’s constitution is under attack — 2007 edition
29 Responses to “California’s high court to rule on marriage equality today”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
California should simply stop marrying anybody. With civil unions for all, equality would be achieved. Leave the m-word to religious unions.
I’m fine with that as long as all heterosexual married couples have their civil marriage certificates converted to civil union certificates, so that there’s a level playing field in terms of what “marriage” really means. We’ve already seen in NJ that separate but equal doesn’t work.
How DARE you want equality! What do you think you are, a human being?
You and your wife look so happy
As a lifelong resident of California, I’d like to think they will issue a fair and reasonable ruling that will allow all citizens to treated fairly.
However, the California I live in today bears as little resemblance to the California I grew up in as the America of today resembles the America of our parents. I don’t hold out a lot of hope…
Slightly related topic - next Tuesday UK MPs are voting on amendments which could see the term limit for abortion reduced from 24weeks to 22, 20, 18, 16, 14 or even 12 weeks. If you or anyone you know is a UK resident or citizen please ask them to contact their MP today or tomorrow and come along to the protest outside parliament on Tuesday evening.
More info on http://www.abortionrights.org.uk
And apologies for hijacking the comments column - please feel free to remove this comment and repost the info somewhere more appropriate. I just want to raise awareness, it’s going to be a very close vote, every bit of help counts. Thanks very much.
One can only hope that we don’t see the kind of punt we witnessed in New York in 2006, though the legislature in California has already shown its ability to pass marriage equality legislation.
… and the Governator refused to sign the bill because he said it should be decided by the courts. If the court does decide to legalize it, he’ll probably announce that it’s an illegitimate decision because the legislature should have done it instead.
And around and around and around we go ….
Just heard on CNN, they overturned the ban.
WHEEEEE!
The opinion can be found at www.courtinfo.ca.gov.
I *think* that means same-sex couples can now marry, but not 100% sure that there isn’t a procedural lag–for example if the State files a motion for reconsideration or somesuch.
I wish I could get all excited that it passed, but opponents already have their constitutional amendment initiative ready to go for the November election. The court struck down Prop 22, which was the law banning gay marriage, so now they’re going to try and amend California’s constitution to disallow it.
Man, it’s gonna be ugly here in the fall. We may be a safe state for the Democratic presidential election, but that’s no guarantee that the amendment to our constitution won’t pass.
*CHEERS!*
It was overturned! I just read it on ABC.com (crap site that it may be.)
*happy dance* I’m so excited!
I *think* that means same-sex couples can now marry,
Not yet
but not 100% sure that there isn’t a procedural lag–for example if the State files a motion for reconsideration or somesuch.
I wish I could get all excited that it passed, but opponents already have their constitutional amendment initiative ready to go for the November election.
Okay, wait, so I think this clears up something that was confusing me. So the idea here is that in California a ballot proposition can be overruled by the California state supreme court on state constitutional grounds, but a constitutional amendment couldn’t, and these are different things?
I’m used to Texas, where ballot propositions are always constitutional amendments. I think through this process I’d somehow been assuming California worked the same way.
A question– if ballot propositions have just the force of ordinary laws, does that mean they can be overriden by legislative action? I.E. if the same-sex marriage law that Schwarzenneger vetoed last year had gone into effect, could it have overriden prop 22?
This is so fucking incredibly awesome!!!!
Who said June is the wedding month … looks like it’s may if you’re gay!
May 17 MA
May 15 CA
Hurrah for California!
Now let’s gear up for the fall, because it’s going to get ugly.
As a born Californian, I’m proud of the court’s decision. Sometimes the good guys do win…
If Arnie holds his word, a big if but let’s play pretend, it gives Obama/Clinton/Edwards cover to come out in favor.
I can dream, right?
Okay, wait, so I think this clears up something that was confusing me. So the idea here is that in California a ballot proposition can be overruled by the California state supreme court on state constitutional grounds, but a constitutional amendment couldn’t, and these are different things?
Yep. It’s a weird-ass system we have out here in California. You can have propositions that are laws OR constitutional amendments. The original prop was a mere law, so now the nuts are going to try and get a full-blown amendment passed.
Problem is, a lot of people don’t realize that there is a difference — I didn’t until it was explained to me — so that’s going to cause some extra confusion in November.
A question– if ballot propositions have just the force of ordinary laws, does that mean they can be overriden by legislative action? I.E. if the same-sex marriage law that Schwarzenneger vetoed last year had gone into effect, could it have overriden prop 22?
Yes, it could have, which is probably why the antis had the constitutional amendment petition in their back pocket ready to go. I’m still pretty muddy on the whole thing, but Kevin Drum seems to have the scoop.
I’m hoping against hope that this holds up.
But what I find the most frightening about the ruling is that if the quote from the dissenting opinion is any indication, there are even some judges out there who don’t understand the purpose of the judiciary in this country:
So when the voters overstep their authority, what then? I doubt Justice Baxter can answer that question.
If Arnie holds his word, a big if but let’s play pretend, it gives Obama/Clinton/Edwards cover to come out in favor.
Holds his word how so exactly? Here’s the statement he released this morning:
In the middle of reading the decision, but the Court seems to be saying, “Separate but equal won’t wash.” They not only struck down the marriage ban, but also seem to be saying that the distinction between Domestic Partnership and Marriage–particularly because the former was set up specifically to be different than marriage–is itself unconstitutional.
HOLY SHIT. I just got to this:
I think this may be the first court to establish sexual orientation as a suspect classification. That’s huge, at least in the California context. Even if a measure passes in the fall, this classification will make it much easier for California activists to challenge anti-gay state and local laws, policies, and regulations.
mcc,
I hadn’t seen that statement, I’d only known that when he vetoed the legislation he used a “let the court decide” sidestep. I was assuming he would do some sort of double backflip dodge and challenge this. That he does not, and that he is opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, makes supporting gay marriage in Cali both the right thing to do AND politically uncontroversial.
I think this may be the first court to establish sexual orientation as a suspect classification.
I don’t think that’s a good thing, in that it refers to it as a “constitutionally suspect basis”. If it hasn’t been previously established that the Californian constitution forbids discrimination on teh basis of sexual orientation to teh same extent as gender, religion or race, the decision might be vulnerable to attack on that basis.
Then again - in what forum will it be attacked? The Supreme Court?
PioToR,
No appeal. The suspect classification, and entire decision, is based on the California constitution.
OT to MA Jeff … how’s that dissertation coming along?
I am so proud of California! A group of my friends and I got access to a tv when they announced the ruling and when it was announced on the news, we all cheered.
Is it silly to say I got a little verklempt?
The dissenting Justices appear not to have read Perez v. Sharp carefully. The “uh, uh, this is scary shit, let the voters decide” argument was used there to argue that the Court should allow ‘anti-miscegenation’ laws to stand.
OT to MA Jeff … how’s that dissertation coming along?
It’s moving, thanks.