California High Court: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

By Eric on May 15, 2008

In a historic decision, the California Supreme Court today ruled that a state law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional. Some money quotes from the decision:

After carefully evaluating the pertinent considerations in the present case, we conclude that the state interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples, and in excluding same-sex couples from access to that designation, cannot properly be considered a compelling state interest for equal protection purposes.

To begin with, the limitation clearly is not necessary to preserve the rights and benefits of marriage currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. Extending access to the designation of marriage to same-sex couples 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. …

While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term “marriage” is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.

Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.

In light of all of these circumstances we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.

There is a ballot initiative circulating in California that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, but Gov. Schwarzenegger has said that he will uphold the ruling and will not support the initiative to overturn it.

It’s a beautiful day in California for marriage equality!

(h/t Meteor Blades for parsing the 172-page (PDF) decision)

Tags: California, LGBT, LGBT rights, marriage, marriage equality

Post a Comment (0)

Shame on the State Department

By Eric on December 4, 2007

Today was a shameful day for the Department of State, Secretary Rice, and the Bush Administration. Today, former ambassador Michael Guest, an openly gay man, was forced to leave the job he loved at the State Department because departmental policies prevented him from fulfilling his obligations to his family.

Most departing ambassadors use these events to talk about their successes . . . But I want to talk about my signal failure, the failure that in fact is causing me to leave the career that I love,” said Mr. Guest, 50, whose most recent assignment was dean of the leadership and management school at the Foreign Service Institute, the government’s school for diplomats.

For the past three years, I’ve urged the Secretary and her senior management team to redress policies that discriminate against gay and lesbian employees. Absolutely nothing has resulted from this. And so I’ve felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner — who is my family — and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary’s leadership and a shame for this institution and our country,” he said.

Unlike heterosexual spouses, gay partners are not entitled to State Department-provided security training, free medical care at overseas posts, guaranteed evacuation in case of a medical emergency, transportation to overseas posts, or special living allowances when foreign service officers are assigned to places like Iraq, where diplomatic families are not permitted.

The New York Times summarizes the case of Michael Guest exactly correctly:

Treating gay public servants by different standards than apply to everyone else is unacceptable, especially at a time when all American diplomats and military personnel are being called on to serve — sometimes repeatedly — in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s also foolhardy since the two conflicts have put such strain on American resources that personnel shortages are commonplace. The government should be doing everything in its power to retain its best and brightest, beginning with treating them equally.

How can George Bush and the Republicans even utter the phrase “family values” when employees of the Bush administration have to choose between their families and their jobs? It’s one shameful thing for this country to refuse an entire group of people their rights because of who they are, but the fact that George W. Bush’s government is willing to prohibit or make it difficult for gay people to lay down their lives for their countries as soldiers, translate terrorist communications and analye intelligence, or train America’s next generation of diplomats is incredibly negligent of the needs of the country and represents a dereliction of President Bush’s duty to uphold the Constitution and protect the United States.

Tags: LGBT rights, Michael Guest, State Department

Post a Comment (0)