Keith's Weblog: Comments on "Calif. Supreme Court to take up gay marriage ban"

by Crawford

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:04:58 +0000

hi keith! hope all is well south of the mason dixon. i agree that these lawsuits pretty much have no merit. i think they should be suing because the ban is an infringement on their religious beliefs.

by Keith

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:56:59 +0000

Yo Crawfish!

I wish instead of the language "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." they'd used something like "In this constitution 'marriage' is defined as the union between one man and one woman". I feel like those in favor of the "gay marriage ban" lost the debate due to the language being used, even though they happened to win the vote. No one likes a ban on things.

The text of the proposition itself was pretty neutral:

PROPOSITION 8

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

But on the ballot it showed up as:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

* Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
* Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

That text is so intellectually offensive because it begs the question on whether it actually is a "right" for gay couples to "marry". If it's a "right" how can you eliminate it? That's wrong. I wonder how many percentage points of the vote this extremely biased description on the ballot accounted for.

Anyway, the point is definitional. I don't believe that the authors of the constitution of the state of California, the preamble of which thanks the "Almighty God" for their freedom and blessings, intended the use of "marriage" in their constitution to mean anything other than the union of one man and one woman.

by Justin

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:37:40 +0000

I would argue the point is not definitional. While the word marriage is subject to cultural definitions, marriage is also a legal status that comes with certain rights. In defining marriage to be between 'a man and woman', Prop 8 denies the legal status of 'married' to gay couples.

A majority of CA voters passed Prop 8; however, that doesn't necessarily mean the Proposition is legal. An argument against Prop 8 is that denying the status of marriage (and it's associated rights) to gay couples violates Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

To me, there seems to be a legitimate legal argument to see if Prop 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Should that argument be made, it will be up to the courts to decide.

Finally, here are a few of the rights of 'marriage':

Joint parental rights of children
Joint adoption
Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Crime victims recovery benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and immunity
Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
Public safety officers death benefits
Spousal veterans benefits
Social Security
Medicare
Joint filing of tax returns
Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
Child support
Joint Insurance Plans
Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
Estate and gift tax benefits
Welfare and public assistance
Joint housing for elderly
Credit protection
Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans