But — Do Not Expect A Mass Exodus Of Closeted, Toe-Tapping Republicans To Flock To “The Golden State”
If I automatically inherit the Constitutional “right” to marry my lovely wife (yeah, opposite sex in my case), then so shall G.O.P. darlins’ Larry Craig and Ted Haggard have that same Constitutional “right” to come out of their lonely “closets” to marry each other, though we can all rest assured neither man will be “publicly-pleased” with today’s ruling by the California State Supreme Court to grant that right to them.
“Activist judges at work again”? HARDLY. In a rare moment of actually getting one right for a change, the “Robed Ones” of Kah-lee-fone-ya simply gazed upon the Constitution and in a 4-3 ruling (shame on those three, by the way), they saw nothing at all to prohibit Teddy and Larry from becoming residents of The Golden State, pledging their vows to each other, then going forth to “procreate no more”.
As you will see from the San Francisco Chronicle’s coverage of this breaking event, the Supreme Court’s majority saw no impact whatsoever upon heterosexual couples such as myself and my wife should a man and a man or a woman and a woman choose to wed. They’re absolutely correct, of course. In fact, the Missus and I were sitting side-by-side watching the breaking news on FNC (yeah, yeah — I know) and neither of us said a word. I think we’re going to get over it…
From the article written by Bob Egelko:
(05-15) 11:16 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.
“The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.
Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry “will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage,” George said. …”
Correct, Sir. While I don’t live in the Great State of California, even if I did, I cannot say I feel this court has deprived my wife and myself of one damned thing. Nor will I feel deprived in any way once Republicans Ted Haggard and Larry Craig gaze into one another’s eyes and say their vows in San Francisco should such a scenario occur. Ouch. Sorry for the “visual” there, but you get the point.
Congratulations to the GLBT Community of California. Say your vows in thirty days and may peace be with you and throughout the lives of your matrimonial relationships. Now that the court has spoken, it will be interesting to hear what John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have to say about this ruling…
Stay tuned.
***
H/T yet again to MemeOrandum…
Other interesting opinions: Crooks and Liars (Left – Video provided, of course); Comments From Left Field (I don’t think it’s possible to write a more awesome post on the topic than Kyle E. Moore has); Michelle Malkin (Right — Ready to rally her Republican troops to the polls); Law Blog (WSJ — Analytical coverage); Andrew Sullivan (A gay conservative himself but hardly the hypocrite so many of his Republican brethren are); Reason Magazine (Libertarian – Seems to echo a true libertarian reaction – refreshing for once); The Moderate Voice (Center – Points out that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won’t interfere with the court’s decision); Kevin Drum (The Washington Monthly – Left – Also takes the side of Liberty); Glenn Greenwald (Left – Very in-depth, well-thought out analysis); Hot Air (Right – The FIRST “hardcore Righty blogger” I’ve read who seems to be in favor of the ruling); Badtux the Snarky Penguin (You… You’ve just gotta SEE it)
Loading ...
11:58 pm on May 15th, 2008 1
Let gays marry. Doesn’t make a difference to me. I believe we will be seeing more states allowing gays to marry in the near future.
7:10 pm on May 16th, 2008 2
Thanks for the link. Yes, I was in fine fettle that day, channeling one part Rude Pundit and one part pure snark
.
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
8:49 pm on May 16th, 2008 3
A same sex married couple moved to Missouri which does not recognize same sex marriage (Nor do I). After they had lived in Missouri for a while they decided to divorce. The judge told them that since same sex marriages are not recognized in Missouri he could not grant their divorce.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
9:10 pm on May 16th, 2008 4
Yeppers, Davey, we gotta keep them darkies err queers in their place, yessire boy howdy! Why, if we grant them equal rights, why, why… WE MIGHT ALL HAVE TO MARRY BOX TURTLES! Oh the horror!
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
6:39 am on May 18th, 2008 5
I’ve suggested in the past that if the American People wanted to be truly cruel, then they could grant gay marriage but ban gay divorce.
From a legal standpoint, the argument hinges on the scope of fundamental right. The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that marriage is a fundamental right, subject to the strictest scrutiny. The issue then becomes whether a gay marriage ban is necessary to advance a compelling government interest, and there are no other less restrictive means available. In essence, what they would have been doing is carving out a niche in a fundamental right under what one might call (for lack of a better word at five in the morning) a prurient interest – because letting those people who have the gay marry is “icky.” The problem is the precedent that that would set runs in contradiction to the Court’s ruling in Loving v. Virginia.
Interestingly enough, about 8 months ago, Maryland reached an activist decision regarding gay marriage. The judge in the case conceded that a literal reading of precedent would seem to support an argument in favor of gay marriage (this would be a “strict constructionist” approach to judicial interpretation – the type advocated for by Justice Scalia, inter alia, except when it doesn’t suit their agenda), but that reading such precedents *literally* would be “beguiling.”
Gay marriage is a hot button issue that is not going to have a smooth journey any direction. It’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out.
11:51 am on May 18th, 2008 6
For a 5 A.M. commentary, you did a very great job, Sir. I’ve been wondering when my favorite blogger -slash- lawyer would be wandering over to opine
1:31 pm on May 18th, 2008 7
I’ve been a bit lax in posting/commenting all about. We’re getting ready for trial and I’ve not had the spare time I would like to devote to writing.
1:19 pm on May 19th, 2008 8
From a Christian religious perspective, gay marriage is a contradiction in terms. So regardless of what the courts decide, there will never be gay marriage in a Christian religious sense. For those who believe that marriage is a religious union, any gay marriage would in reality be strictly secular or civil, i.e. a civil union, regardless of the terminology or semantics applied to it by the courts or others.
Since the drive to legalize gay marriage, or ban making it illegal, is mainly based in the idea that gay couples should share in the same benefits as heterosexual married couples, e.g. insurance coverage, inheritance, and other legal/monetary issues (not to mention marriage penalty on income taxes), then it makes sense that a civil union would satisfy their wants and needs. Beyond that it appears to be an issue of semantics. Calling a gay civil union a marriage does not make it a marriage in the traditional, Christian, or religious sense.
4:56 pm on May 19th, 2008 9
The law isn’t worried about traditional, Christian, or religious. It is worried about the Equal Protection amendment of the California Constitution, which holds that “separate but equal” is inherently a violation of the Constitution and thus illegal. You cannot have one legal construct named “marriage” for straight people, and one legal construct named “civil union” for gay people, and have it be legal under the California constitution. For that matter, it’s dubious whether that would work under the U.S. Constitution — Brown v. Board of Education pretty much clarified that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal under the law. But that’s a case I’d prefer to not have heard, especially with the current U.S. Supreme Court, which is just as likely to overturn Brown v. Board of Education and allow state-sanctioned “separate but equal” segregation again.
There is the argument that government should not be in the marriage business at all, and that you should call it “civil union” whether it’s a gay couple or a straight couple. That would comply with the Equal Protection provisions of the California constitution, but for some reason those who would legislate their religious bigotries refuse to hear of this solution. I think that pretty much shows what the real problem is for those who oppose equal protection under the law — that they’re bigots who hate others who are not like them. Sad to say, the end of Jim Crow did not end hatred and bigotry. The bigots simply keep finding new targets to hate. It must be sad, living with that kind of hate and bile in your body all the time. But bigots, I guess, will be with us until the last of them pops off a vein in their brain and strokes out from the high blood pressure of years of hate — alas, generally after reproducing like rabbits and inculcating their hatred into new generations of bigots.
- Badtux the Bigotry-spottin’ Penguin
6:18 pm on May 19th, 2008 10
Yeah Snarky, I knew that would get your goat. Too bad you missed my point though. That tends to happen when you have decided what the message is before you read it, no offense to any reading-challenged penguins out there.
Gay marriage can be no more than a civil union – that should be clear enough. It won’t be a Christian religious union because it won’t meet that definition. Those who would oppose gay marriage on the basis of religion have no need to fear changes in the law that would legalize gay marriage, it will not affect the nature of traditional, religious, heterosexual marriage in the least. It doesn’t matter what you call it. It is what it is.
It appears that you have a great deal of trouble accepting any opinions other than your own, which is sad because most penguins’ thought processes are heavily influenced by non-over-the-counter drugs, if you get my drift
Anyway, the idea that “It must be sad, living with that kind of hate and bile in your body all the time,” etc, sort of rings hollow when it is expressed with such venom by one as bigoted as yourself. Just because you profess to hate bigots, certainly does not mean you aren’t one. It is too bad that the brain-altering effects of the recreation patterns of typical penguins apparently makes bigotry-spotting more difficult than they realize, especially when they keep missing the bigot-in-the-mirror. It is reassuring that many of those recreational drugs inhibit the body’s ability to reproduce. Maybe that’s just another part of God’s plan, eh? 
6:51 pm on May 19th, 2008 11
Hmm, somebody seems to have a guilty conscience, because I was not speaking to or about F&B in any way in my previous message. I would not know enough about F&B to know whether he or she is a bigot or not. I was speaking in the more general sense about those who complain about “judicial activism” when the California Supreme Court interprets the California Constitution strictly. The California Constitution states that all Californians must have equal protection under the law. There can be no general class of people under California law that does not receive equal treatment under the law. This has nothing to do with tradition, religion, or other such non-legal constructs.
My personal thought is that government should not be in the marriage business at all. Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental one. Government should only be in the civil union business, granting legal rights to those who are members of a conjugal relationship (whether same-sex or different-sex). In other words, you would receive a civil union license and certificate from the courthouse, and if you decide you wish a religious certification of your union, you would receive a marriage certificate from the clergy of the church of your choice, whether that church be the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, the Mormon Church, or the Church of The Great Penguin Incarnate (a herring mass! yay!). That does not, however, appear to go over well with the opponents of same sex marriage, who tend to resort to sputtering and finally a stark admission that they wish to write their religious bigotries into the law, which at least has the advantage of honesty I suppose.
Regarding over-the-counter drugs, I must admit that I drank a large jug prior to my previous message. A large jug of chocolate milk, that is. Run, everybody, the penguin is drunk! So it goes.
– Badtux the Clarifying Penguin