The legal process that began a little over four years ago with the same-sex marriages in San Francisco has finally ran its way to the California Supreme Court. Mr. Jeeves and I were married in San Francisco March 5, 2004. Today, oral arguments are going on from 9am to 12 noon.
Watching the arguments on TV is … interesting. I have a lot of feelings attached to this, and it is painful to watch people argue that we should not eligible for the “fundamental right to marriage” . I have never watched supreme court hearings, so it is interesting to see how the judges posit hypotheticals that needle each side. I will be posting in this thread a couple of more times as the hearing continues.
The court customarily rules within 90 days of oral arguments.
Well, and there goes the “Men and Women are forbidden to marry their own gender equally argument” Well handled by the respondent, whose name I didn’t catch.
Agggh! One justice just questioned whether sexual orientation is immutable, even though the state concedes that point.
I heard on NPR this morning that one opponent of SSM was arguing that the law had the right and duty to “uphold tradition”. Please tell me that argument has been demolished by analogy to slavery, segregation, women’s rights, etc. etc. – please?
Actually, they just spent quite a bit of time on that. I think that the respondent did a good job demolishing that, but a couple of the justices seemed skeptical. I guess they were strict constructionists, although in a state like California where the constitution has been amended so many times, it is hard to make that argument.
I heard maybe the same thing. Someone (attourney general?) said it should be up to the voters not the courts. Bad logic. Minorities might not get any rights that way. It’s not OK to descriminate, except for when the voters say it’s OK?
All those idjits fighting for the “sanctity of marriage” should work on getting it more difficult to get divorced, then.
Ten years waiting for this moment of fate
When we say the words and sign our names
If they take it away again someday
This beautiful thing won’t change
I’m not gay, but when Gavin Newsom started doing the same-sex marriages, I sent him an email saying “you did the right thing”, and I am proud to have voted against Proposition 22 in 2000. I’m hoping with you…
And note: when I become Supreme Dictator of the World, your marriage will be retroactively valid, and anyone who doesn’t like it can lump it.
I honestly don’t get the brouhaha over SSM. We’re talking about two consenting adults…how anyone can equate that to the slippery slope of marrying a dog is beyond my comprehension.
I’m biased, but the representative for the attorney general keeps saying ummm alot. One of the justices asked why there is one attorney representing the state and the attorney general, and a private attorney representing Arnold. I wonder that myself, because at the beginning of the process there wasn’t, the attorney generals office also represented Arnold.
Interesting, the AG was just asked by one of the justices whether the fact that is is much easier/less formal to join into domestic partnership and less formal to dissolve a DP indicates that DPs have less status than marriage.
The AGs responce was that the difference was positive, that many married couples would like an option to dissolve a marriage without going to court. Pretty weak argument in my view.
The marriage is for procreation argument was brought up by an attorney for the Prop 22 foundation. I don’t think the justices were very impressed by it.
A new attorney is up now, though I didn’t catch who he represents. I find it interesting that all of the attorneys on the anti-SSM side are all older white males. The plaintiffs side has much more diversity.
Its so frustrating to hear the attorneys repeat, ad nauseum, that marriage is defined as 1 man 1 woman and nothing short of an act of god can change that. That is what all of their arguments boil down to.
Jeeves you’ve brought up an interesting discussion. Please keep us informed as to the progress (hopefully) of the Court’s actions. I’m going to subscribe to this thread to stay informed.
Thanks, Jake
OMG, the attorney up there right now just said that one of the purposes of marriage is “In integrateing the sexes in marriage, not segregating them in same sex relations”
Oh, apparently accidental pregnancy is an important aspect of marriage. Since same-sex couples can’t accidently get pregnant, they should not be allowed to get married.
What the hell does that even mean? Seriously – that sentence doesn’t make one iota of sense to me.
This is like one of those arguments you pull out when all of your good and weak arguments have been used up. In fact, both of these seem to have been pulled from the “baffle 'em with bullshit” file.
In that case, they need to drop their current nonsense and get on with providing a simple dissolution process for marriage. If it’s a good thing, why not make it available to the institution they claim to be “protecting”?
Under federal constitutional law, laws that impinge upon the rights of various classifications of people are held to different levels of scrutiny under the 14th Amendment. Laws that impinge on the basis of such classifications as race and religion are subject to the highest level of scrutiny, “strict” scrutiny. Laws that impinge on the basis of such charactristics as sex are subject to “intermediate” scrutiny. Laws that impinge on other characteristics are subject to “rational basis review,” the lowest level of review. Each of those different levels of scrutiny has its own set of tests as to whether the classification falls under strict or intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review. The US Supreme Court has traditionally ruled that sexual orientation is subject to rational basis review, meaning that for the law to be constitutional it need only show a “legitimate” state interest that the law advances. I haven’t seen the arguments, have no idea whether any federal constitutional questions have been raised by either side and no idea what analysis the CA supreme court uses or where sexual orientation fits in that analysis, but the use of the word “irrational” sounds like it’s an attempt to invoke a rational basis analysis by suggesting that banning SSM advances a legitimate interest of the state of California.
Personally I have always believed that bans on SSM should be analyzed at least at the intermediate level, as they are based not in the sexuality of the participants but in their sex. I have not reviewed the cases for a long while but IIRC several state supreme courts that have issued opinions on same-sex couples’ legal recognition have used this level of analysis (although not necessarily called “intermediate scrutiny”) in issuing decisions in favor of same-sex couples.
Thank you for the explanation Otto. They did bring up various federal cases, most notably Lawrence v. Texas and Loving v. Virginia, not to mention the California anti-misceganation case Perez .
There was argument about whether or not this was intermediate, or rational basis for scrutiny. I will have to watch it again to understand it more. A friend of mine is a law student, and since I recorded the arguments, has arranged for the GLBT Law group at her school to watch the arguments. I will be there as well, and it will be interesting to see what the law student perspective is. Unfortunatley, due to their schedule and my schedule, this probably won’t be until the end of March.
Outside of the comparison to marrying a minor (who have no legal right to consent), how are the other two different? People love each other. They want to get married. It doesn’t harm anyone else. And it’s no one else’s business.
I can appreciate that pretending there’s a difference so you can fight fewer battles is the better course to winning, but I don’t think there’s any reason to get mad for people pointing out that you’re doing just that.
