WOW! That Was Unexpected

[furrbear]

Whew.

When the CA Supreme Court issued it's rather remarkable marriage decision this past May, I told David that I expected the Separate But Unequal Is NOT Equal (aka Equal Protection) argument to be used to convert the Civil Union states into Marriage States. I just did not expect to see another decision so soon after California's.

Justice Richard Palmer, writing for the 4-3 majority, ruled:

"The issue presented by this case is whether the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates the constitution of Connecticut. The plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, commenced this action, claiming that the state statutory prohibition against same sex marriage violates their rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the state constitution. The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendant state and local officials upon determining that, because this state’s statutes afford same sex couples the right to enter into a civil union, which affords them the same legal rights as marriage, the plaintiffs had not established a constitutionally cognizable harm. We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.

We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage."

"...our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice."

(Full Opinion)

This ruling underscores how vitally important it is that CA Proposition 8 be defeated. Be assured the foes of Marriage Equality will be taking to their pulpits in full force this Sunday to get even more money pouring into the Yes on 8 campaign. Hopefully the message can be spread to Californians that rather than some liberal mistake, full Marriage Equality puts them in the lead on this progressive issue.

Links

• MSNBC
  
  
• The New York Times
  
  
• The Guardian (UK)

Comments

[tazz602.livejournal.com]

My only fear is that those States that allow civil unions may be challenged and some may lose on the argument that allowing civil unions will lead to Gay marriage.

Here's hoping that CA Prop 8 does go down.

[theevilnub.livejournal.com]

It's time for Rhode Island to get on the ball now.

Among others, for sure. But especially them. At the very least it would make the map illustrations on the issue a bit tidier. :)