Page:
1
| 2
California's one last hope for killing Proposition 8 -- the ballot initiative that would reverse the right of same-sex couples to marry by amending the state constitution -- died this week when the California supreme court, without comment, refused to hear a legal challenge to the measure put forth by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and others before the November election.
The groups essentially argued that Prop. 8 would effect so major a change to the California Constitution that it could only be put to the voters by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature or a constitutional convention, not simply as the result of a signature drive.
But take heart. Far from being over, the battle over Prop. 8’s validity has not yet even been joined. All the court did Tuesday was to say, in effect, “We’re not going to hear these challenges before the election.” If Prop. 8 passes on November 4, all the challenges will be there waiting on November 5, and one of those challenges in particular is powerful indeed.
Let’s review: In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 22, which amended a section of the California Family Code to read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Significantly, Prop. 22 resulted in a statute. It didn’t change the state’s constitution. Statutes must comply with the state and federal constitutions, and if they don’t, the courts are charged with striking them down, at least in theory.
That’s exactly what the California supreme court did in its May 15 decision – it ruled that Prop. 22, the statute, violated our state constitution in two major ways. First, the court held that gays and lesbians, like everyone else, enjoy a “fundamental right” to marry under the constitution’s due process and privacy clauses, and that Prop. 22 violated that right. A “fundamental right” is one the government can’t take away from anyone without a compelling reason. Freedom of religion, free expression, and voting are other fundamental rights. California’s is the first state supreme court to recognize the fundamental right of gays and lesbians to marry, according to Lambda Legal.
Second, the court held that by permitting heterosexuals to marry the person of their choice, but denying gays and lesbians that same right, Prop. 22 violated the California constitution’s “equal protection” clause. The equal protection clause forbids the government from treating “similarly situated” citizens differently without some reason. How compelling that reason has to be depends on the right at issue, and who’s being deprived of it. If the right is “fundamental,” or the unequal treatment is based on a “suspect classification,” the court must apply what’s known as “strict scrutiny” in deciding whether the law is constitutional.
In its marriage decision, the California supreme court held that Prop. 22 qualified for strict scrutiny on both grounds.
First, the court ruled that the law impeded the fundamental right to marry. Second, the court recognized that Prop. 22 harmed gays and lesbians while leaving everyone else alone, and then held that sexual orientation was a “suspect classification,” deeming gays and lesbians worthy of the same protections afforded to other marginalized groups such as African-Americans and women that have historically suffered discrimination. The idea behind suspect classifications, sometimes called “suspect classes” or “protected classes,” is simple. If a statute harms members of one of these protected groups more than others, there’s a suspicion of discriminatory intent, which binds the courts to scrutinize that law strictly. Long story short, statutes almost never survive the lens of “strict scrutiny,” and Prop. 22 was no exception.
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.
Home | Contact | Current Issue | LGBT Community Partners | Staff
Career Opportunities | Help
Subscribe: Print Edition Digital Edition | Subscriber Services: Print Edition Digital Edition
Visit our Websites
Out.com | OutTraveler.com | HIVPlusMag.com | Alyson.com | HereTV.com | GayWired.com | SheWired.com
Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Community Guidelines | Legal Notice
Advocate.com © 2009 Regent Entertainment Media Inc. All Rights Reserved.
