Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: A victory for basic rights
Court legalizes gay marriage
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion
With Thursday's 4-3 California Supreme Court ruling that overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage, California may soon be the second state in the union to allow couples of the same gender to marry.
The court's ruling is significant.
Barring a legal hold on the judgment, the county of Ventura clerk could be issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples next month.
Eight years ago, 61 percent of California voters passed Proposition 22, which stated, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Thursday's ruling strikes down that proposition.
However, signatures have been gathered for a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban marriages between same-gender couples that, if it qualifies, would be on the November ballot. If that were to pass, Thursday's Supreme Court decision would be moot.
We hope that doesn't happen.
We believe it is only a matter of time before marriage of same-gender couples is as accepted as marriage of people of different races is today. Up until 1948, interracial marriage was prohibited in California.
Grappling with the question
Thursday's majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Ron George, goes into great detail about the significance of the words "marriage" and "domestic partnership." Under a series of legislative acts, gay and lesbian couples in California, who register as domestic partners, have the same rights as married couples, although they are still denied many of the same rights married couples are afforded under federal law.
Chief Justice George wrote that the court grappled with the question of whether "the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution."
He argued that, under the California Constitution, "the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."
Marriage of same-gender couples, he writes, does not threaten marriages of opposite-gender couples. "Finally," he writes, "retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects second-class' citizens who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples."
He emphasized that more than semantics is at play with the word marriage. Because of its "considerable and undeniable symbolic importance," to deny the designation to same-gender couples would constitute "significantly unequal treatment." Plaintiffs argued that the U.S. Supreme Court did not accept a separate laws school for black students in 1950 (University of Texas, Sweatt v. Painter) or a separate military program for women in 1996 (Virginia Military Institute, United States v. Virginia).
Nor did the California court in 1948 differentiate between traditional marriage and "transracial unions," Chief Justice George wrote.
Enforce freedoms and equal protection
Justice Joyce Kennard penned her own concurring opinion that "There is a reason why the words Equal Justice Under Law' are inscribed above" the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court. "Both the federal and state Constitutions guarantee to all the equal protection of the laws' . The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression in an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection."
We have to wonder why "majoritarian institutions" will now do back flips to try to block a ruling that does no harm to them. What if redheads were denied the right to marry? What if people with green eyes were denied the right to marry?
What if same-gender couples — our family members, neighbors and friends — had to live one more day denied a basic right heterosexuals take for granted?
We applaud the court's decision and, if there is constitutional amendment to ban same-gender marriage on the November ballot, we hope it is soundly defeated.
Posted by mikeb6804 on May 16, 2008 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did the gays win anything they didn't already have with civil unions? Only the right to jam their lifestyle down our throats. Sorry, Mr. Editorial Writer. This is a crock.
Posted by laura_54321 on May 16, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Star, for this editorial. I am happy for my state, for the advancement of Consititutional principles, and for all of the marginalized families in California who were fully enfranchised with yesterday's decision.
Posted by cassandra on May 16, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Agreed Laura, I too am happy for my state. I plan to go to church this Sunday to celebrate, as the congregation has long championed marriage equality, and this will be good news indeed.
I take back all the nasty things I've been saying about the triviality of the Star's editorials. Sometimes the staff do take on issues of importance and take positions exposing them to disapproval by some segments of their readership. It isn't all Republican lite, pigeon poop and mothers milk.
Posted by unclneal on May 16, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is interesting to note that there is no name (writer) attached to this editorial... is he or she afraid of the backlash?
My greatest fear in this issue is that my religious rights will be at risk if and when a same-sex couple demands that they be married in my church... Will the state demand that we must allow them to marry in our church? If so, then that is an infringement on my rights to worship as I believe! The state supreme court has lost its collective mind.
I hope that the ballot measure to change the California constitution goes through, because I don't want the state telling me or my family that I must accept this in our church!
Posted by cassandra on May 16, 2008 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Queer? Hmm.... idiosyncratic, maybe.
Sure, MM, let's do lunch. I don't know about gay, but you've always struck me as well meaning (if misinformed).
The state can't force a church to marry anyone. What a paranoid idea! Clergy have refused to officiate at many different unions for reasons of doctrine over the years--mixed marriages, for example or unsanctioned divorces of prior marriages-- and no governmental agency has every challenged their decisions. Why scare oneself with unreasoning fantasies to justify an unreasonable position?
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Each Church, Mosque, Synagogue, or Temple has the right to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony. The Catholic Church won't 'sanctify' a union between a Jew and a Taoist. They simply do not belong to the Catholic Church. This action doesn't change that.
Remember the doctrine of Separation of Church and State.
Putting the religious argument aside, as it should be, I think the only reason people have in opposing same-gender marriage is the fear that some gay person will try to seduce them. These people should be more worried about the perverted heteros out there that prey on the youngest of our citizens.
If a gay person DOES try to seduce you, just smile and say: "No thank you. I'm straight. But, I DO appreciate your good taste."
And remember, we are talking about monogomous, non-blood relative relationships.
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think I ever offered a 'lunch-date'. But, I, too, agree to lunch with cassandra and mmshoot.
Posted by carexpritch on May 16, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please, "unclneal", explain further how anyone can DEMAND a marriage ceremony be performed in any particular church.
Are you next going to argue that people next will be allowed under the law to marry a goat?
Also, here is a tip to catch you up with even the 20th Century:
A newspaper EDITORIAL is the position of the newspaper as an institution, not a particular individual as author.
Really, have you and your fellow pro-discrimination pals given up on your classic argument that marriage for a gay couple somehow will degrade the existing marriage of a straight couple?
Posted by bbbdugout on May 16, 2008 at 11:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
well I see there is a couple of idiots still out there - first who cares who marries who - and yes the advantages are many that go with that license - (i.e. your partner is on their death bed - a spouse can go in and comfort them - a spouse can absorb the others estate tax free to a limit) - and don't forget "God" if he/she is really "God" - they don't care about the color of your skin, your sexual preference, your national orgin - we "supposedly" are all children of God - or is your God a bigot too.....like many of you
Posted by cassandra on May 16, 2008 at 11:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Guys, I'm a foodie (wouldn't you just know!) and would prefer Nature's Grill in downtown Ventura if in Ventura or comparable if not. The ambiance at the grill is good for talking as well.
Another possibility is a picnic at a park with everyone bringing his/her acceptable foods.
Posted by avuncular2008 on May 16, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mike6, yes, there are distinctions between civil unions and marriage. Besides the legal ones, it's the acceptance that ones devotion to another person is not marginalized into a separate category. Since civil unions are already there, btw, and since you claim they are the same as marriage, how is this "cramming" anything into your life?
How can this possibly threaten people so much? What are they defending? How does it personally hurt you?
Ironically, gay marriage is actually a conservative notion. Also, I would echo what others have said--that the CA Supreme Court is dominated by republicans.
Posted by del on May 16, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whew, I hope you all can get your social calendars set so we can get back to the topic at hand. (a little levity from the old curmudgeon)
Posted by cassandra on May 16, 2008 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Another nice thing about Nature's Grill is that people line up to place their order and pay one by one and then the staff find you to serve it. It is a tidy no host situation.
No, I don't own a piece of the place.
Somebody name a day and time. I'm not available Thursdays. Anybody who shows is part of it all--Shaver, MM, Del et al.. I'll be wearing or carrying a bike helmet.
There was almost unanimity about marriage equality so it's not such a lively topic anyway, a lot of repetition of the main points. Any of you hot to cross swords with the misguided try the comment board on the front page article instead. Your work is cut out for you there.
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So...
where is Nature's Grill?
Posted by cassandra on May 16, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can Google it for an address, but it is basically across from the downtown Century theatre between Chestnut and California on Main.
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As long as I don't have to watch the movie.
Posted by unclneal on May 16, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Someone has asked "how can someone force a marriage in a church?" The point I was making that all things considered in our "changing" society, it would not surprise me if now a gay couple tries to sue a church for discrimination! It wouldn't surprise me if the anti-American ACLU would push the issue! Yes, it could lead to that!
Wake up people! This is the beginning of the end of way of life! If you hate America that much, plesae leave!
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sue the Church...interesting idea. We could sue over perverted priests molesting little boys. Wait. That's already been done.
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
...an organization that is dedicated to preserving those rights granted to us by our Constitution.
How can that be anti-American?
No, I am not a member. They support certain issues that I am against. But, they do look out for the best interests (mostly) of the majority of Americans.
It's amazing that there are so many people who say they love America, but, clearly cannot stand Americans.
If YOU hate the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights so much, why don't YOU go to Iran?
Oh...wrong religion. Same God, but wrong prophet.
Enough said.
TTFN.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 16, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a welcome decision, but one that hard to keep intact. Those who are against gay marriage will not give up the fight. I believe there are two different ballot measures in the works to ban gay marriage constitionally. One of those measures is reported to also roll back the gains made by those who have gone the route of domestic partnership.
Be sure that the media will be clogged with nonsense like the comments about a church being "forced" to marry a gay couple. What hogwash!
Frankly, given the sorry state of heterosexual marriage, with some 50% ending in divorce or separation, gay marriage is not the problem here
The entire concept of the "State" having the "right" to sanction or not sanction a marriage grew out of fear of race-mixing, such laws existed up until 1967.
Why does anyone need a license at all?
Sometimes I think before getting a marriage "license" people should take out a temporary permit for a few years..see if things work out.
Posted by cassandra on May 16, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
July! It was all a tease, wasn't it, MM? I'm hurt. See if I make any more dates with you.
I think the state's involvement with marriage licensing goes back further to a time when church and state were united in European nations, the origin of much of mainstream American culture. Thus the sacramental nature of church blessing sealed the legal status as well.
The state certainly has a legitimate stake in tracking marriages for issues of inheritance and such, but it doesn't seem to have much necessity to grant licenses to anyone or to refuse except wherein it involves minors or others incapable of consenting, or real public health issues. So much of leftovers of this unity of church and state has been abusive i.e. femme couverte, lack of community property rights, etc. It seems a very good thing to let this one go.
I enjoyed Gary Newsom's (San Francisco mayor )enthusiastic welcome of the court's decision on Democracy Now! clip today.
Posted by cassandra on May 16, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW we seem to have lost CAUCASOID's comment, which kind of leaves my rejoinder hanging.
Posted by johnmuir96 on May 16, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This will assure that the republican runner for president will sweep the state of California.
Why you ask- because we the voters of this great state will have the last say when we vote to change the states consitution.
Thus the gay lifestyle being jammed into our childrens brains at public schools and the media biased will come to a halt
Posted by cassandra on May 16, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There does seem to be a lack of logic in Mr. Muir's post. How will a California court decision assure the win of the Republican candidate, (assuredly McCain at this point)? California reliably goes to the lesser evil (the Democrats) as a general rule. How would changing the California Constitution affect our preferences in the national election?
Likewise state mandated education laws would be unaffected by the federal election. And finally it is the Republicans who steadfastly hold out for further media consolidation and subsequent bias, both on the FCC and in the legislature.
Note new Congressional attempts to halt erosion of journalistic standards and diversity of opinion.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051...
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 16, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Muir makes a valid point.
Fringe issues ike "Gay Marriage" (and it is a fringe issue) serve to mobilize certain kinds of voters. In this case the conservative, "Christian" (and I use that term loosely) voters will make extra effort to do the vote thing. Along the way, they will vote down progressive candidates....Democrats.
Given that most elections involve no wheres near the total eligible voting population, it becomes easy for a fraction of the electorate to swing an election. If only 60% of eligible voters vote, and 31 or 40% of those wish to ban gay marriage....is that a landslide??
No, not really. Our nation has moved from majority rule to minority rule...look at our current California legislature if you doubt that. A numerical number of members, far less than a majority, effectively control legislation.
And really Muir..nobody is ramming anything down your, or your childrens throat. That's just BS. Sounds like semi-phallic BS to me.
For all you know, your children may change their sexual orientation soon, may already have in fact. Parents are often the last to know.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on May 16, 2008 at 6:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh.....and another thought..
Very early in these posts it was more or less stated that this Editorial was "unsigned", that now one writer was attached to this, and that maybe it was because said autho was afraid of "the backlash?".
Well, I don't really know, but it's been my understanding that the Star's main Editorial reflects a variety of viewpoints from both paid Editorial staff, and Community Representatives.
Perhaps it might be appropriate for the Star to explain the process by which a "column One" editorial is fashioned....just to clear things up.
Posted by cassandra on May 16, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hmm . .. well, you certainly make a point, Mr. Johnston, whether valid or not, at least plausible. Whether it is the point intended by Mr. Muir, I couldn't say as there was so little connection between his assertions and his conclusions, it seemed murky.
I suspect it was more a amygdalan sputter, on his part, a confused impulse from the old lizard brain, and a creative interpretation on your part.
Certainly all campaigns throw out "red meat" issues close to elections to mobilize their supporters to the polls. You could be right.
Posted by mratcliff on May 20, 2008 at 1:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Star editorials on the left side of the Opinion page are positions of The Star Editorial Board, not an individual. They are written by Opinion staff of The Star.
Marianne Ratcliff
Opinion editor
Ventura County Star
Posted by outremind on May 26, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
there are 2,000 some rights that are DENIED to gay couples in a "civil union" that are granted to heterosexual couples in a "marriage."
We are all equal. Period.
500 years ago, they thought the earth was flat. 150 years ago, they thought women were property. 100 years ago, they thought black people were dogs. 50 years ago, no one had ever heard of AIDS. Today, we have a viable candidate for the Presidency who is an African-American and a viable female candidate. Tomorrow, who KNOWS what we will have learned?
You close-minded hate-filled traditionalists need to wake up and smell the rainbow-brewed coffee. Every year, there are more and more people who think like me are crossing over into adulthood and voting age and fewer and fewer people who think like you are still living.
You can drag your heels, but you'll just be left in our dust.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.