California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[JonoBN41]

The activists will try to get gay marriage banned again in November.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

The activists will try to get gay marriage banned again in November.

That'll be tough to do. I haven't seen the actual opinion, but I did read the wiki article. If accurate, it seemed to indicate that the California Supreme Court said that gays were a suspect class, on the same level as race (the article incorrectly lumped race and gender together as a "suspect" class, which is wrong since gender is a semi-suspect class). What all of that means is that under California law, laws which discriminate against gays will be given strict scrutiny.

What all that means is that any sort of laws passed discriminating against gays will be unconstitutional in California. I'd be interested to know whether the California Supreme Court found that the protection here was in the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.

If anyone knows the citation for the case, hook me up.

[JonoBN41]

What I still don't understand is how gay marriage somehow threatens traditional marriage. I mean, I can see how giving voting privileges to blacks and women threatened the power traditionally held by white men (although it was ultimately done), but what difference would it make to any happily married couple if two guys across the street were also married?

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

What I still don't understand is how gay marriage somehow threatens traditional marriage. I mean, I can see how giving voting privileges to blacks and women threatened the power traditionally held by white men (although it was ultimately done), but what difference would it make to any happily married couple if two guys across the street were also married?

Anyone else care to try to answer my question?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

Anyone else care to try to answer my question?

If you are one of Earp's ilk...then no...not really...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

What I still don't understand is how gay marriage somehow threatens traditional marriage. I mean, I can see how giving voting privileges to blacks and women threatened the power traditionally held by white men (although it was ultimately done), but what difference would it make to any happily married couple if two guys across the street were also married?

I don't think it does. In fact, I can kind of buy the Massachusetts Supreme Court's view that bans on gay marriage can pass the rational basis test. What the California Supreme Court did was take that about a zillion (that's a legal term of art) times further by making laws against homosexuals "suspect classifications" which get strict scrutiny.

(I still don't know whether the wiki was right because the author didn't know that classifications regarding gender don't get strict scrutiny, but rather intermediate scrutiny).

[modorney]

Originally Posted by Kevin

(I still don't know whether the wiki was right because the author didn't know that classifications regarding gender don't get strict scrutiny, but rather intermediate scrutiny).

Kevin, you can join wikipedia and edit the wiki. You have far more knowledge of the law than most of us, and seem to have an objectivity in explaining it.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That'll be tough to do. I haven't seen the actual opinion, but I did read the wiki article. If accurate, it seemed to indicate that the California Supreme Court said that gays were a suspect class, on the same level as race (the article incorrectly lumped race and gender together as a "suspect" class, which is wrong since gender is a semi-suspect class). What all of that means is that under California law, laws which discriminate against gays will be given strict scrutiny.

What all that means is that any sort of laws passed discriminating against gays will be unconstitutional in California. I'd be interested to know whether the California Supreme Court found that the protection here was in the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.

If anyone knows the citation for the case, hook me up.

I found that interesting as well; the Supreme Court after Lawrence seems to have kept the question open, on a federal level as to whether the scrutiny afforded to sexuality; I wonder if this decision will get people talking in other courts. I'm not suggesting it will open the door to a change on the federal level, but we'll see.

I didn't read the full 172 pages of the opinion (thanks for the post Mystic), but judging from the brief discussion I read, it seems that the statutory structure in CA made it easier for the court to rule the way it did.

I kind of wish I was still in Constitutional Law, as it would have made for an interesting classroom discussion (my professor talked about this issue quite a bit, and as a former clerk for Brennan, I'm sure he would have had some interesting viewpoints).