The California Supreme Court ruled today that Proposition 8, limiting marriage in California to "opposite-sex couples," is a valid amendment to the California State Constitution. While some commentators criticize the California Court's decision, Strauss v. Horton is actually good for gay marriage in the long term.
The Court's decision drives home that the future of gay rights lies at the ballot box and not in the courts. We should view the California Court not as opposing gay marriage, but rather as promoting public deliberation and democratic action on the subject of equal rights.
As a technical matter, the central issue in Strauss was whether the sentence "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" was a constitutional amendment or a constitutional revision. In practice, the political question presented by Strauss was whether the California Supreme Court would strike down a popularly enacted constitutional change and restore its earlier judicial decision supporting same-sex marriage.
By upholding Proposition 8, the California Court effectively tossed the ball back to the voters of the Golden State. The Court thereby ensured the long-term outcome of gay marriage: Given the strong support of younger voters, gay marriage will be approved in California by ballot initiative, perhaps quite soon. Moreover, when gay marriage is approved by popular vote, conservatives will not be able to blame a "judicial activist" court for their loss.
Gay marriage will stand on sounder footing when it is popularly enacted rather than judicially imposed. One can imagine the wedge issue Strauss could have handed the Republican Party had the Court overturned the decision of the California electorate. Instead, opponents of same sex marriage must fight it out again at the ballot box.
Supporters of gay marriage should recognize that we are reaching the limits of judicial leadership on this issue. While Brown v. Board enunciated important values, real change came through the politically enacted Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, repeal of discriminatory measures like the Defense of Marriage Act will take legislative action. Don't Ask Don't Tell must also be retired by political, rather than judicial, means.
The popular adoption of gay marriage is on the rise. Gay marriage has been adopted by legislative action in Vermont and Maine. New Hampshire's same sex marriage bill has passed the state legislature, and Governor Paterson's bill has cleared the New York Assembly. There is already a plan to put a pro-gay marriage amendment on the California ballot in 2010.
With solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President, now is the time to begin enacting a progressive political agenda through the ballot box. We must recognize that we are reaching the limits of judicial leadership, and that We the People must now take charge. The Court's decision in Strauss is a clarion call for political action.
This ruling on Prop 8 reinforces the province of the State of California over the feds - an authority that in 9 of 10 cases that gay activists would prefer to maintain. Don't toss that strategic advantage for one immediate gain.
Fed up with being harassed by police for no other crime than being a marriage comprised of a white man and a black woman, Richard Loving took his case to the Supreme Court.
That was 1967, and the Supreme Court ruled that those laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were unconstitutional. The justices did so in direct defiance of popular opinion, and solely on the basis of the cold, hard facts of the case, and the content of our Constitution, and simple human decency.
Prior to Loving vs. Virginia, the woman I am now married to, the wonderful, elegant, amazing, talented *soulmate* that God has blessed me with, well, if it were 1967 our marriage would be *illegal* in sixteen states and the *majority* of Americans would think our marriage *wrong,* and many would no doubt assert that "the Bible says so!"
Being gay is an *orientation,* not a "lifestyle choice," and any first semester Psychology or Human Biology student knows this to be a scientific fact.
To continue to discriminate against the fundamental human right of consenting adults to marry while denying the actual facts of the matter is the height of intellectual dishonesty in the service of a morally bankrupt authoritarian political agenda.
Leland R. Erickson
Citizen
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."
I am surprised that no one in any of the articles has commented that gay marriages (those legally married will stand)
That is the ace in the hole and no seems to realize it. People were saying gay marriage denied them equality. Well, the court just made some more equal than others. While I prefer the ballot box. This seems like an open and shut case for the next Johnny Cochran
How sad that California's judicial system is so frightened of Utah's religious system.
No really, why? Why should we be treated differently from other minorities? If popular vote had determined whether the US would still have slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, etc., we'd be living in a very different society today. Does anyone want to argue that the court decisions instrumental in changing those conditions were unjust?
The tyranny of the majority should never be allowed to deny basic civil rights to minorities. The purpose of our constitution is to provide for majority rule while protecting minority rights. Why else have a judicial system? Why have a balance of powers at all? The courts' purpose is to interpret the constitution. My interpretation of equal justice under law is just that -- equal justice for all. That means I should have the same rights, responsibilities, and protections everyone else has. As long as we do not, we live in a hypocritical society that only provides justice to some rather than all.
Look, I want to get married. My family's rights should not have to wait.
I'll never understand why propositions regarding equal rights are legal in the first place.
Or should any relationship be a marriage?