I LOVE comments. Please leave some even if they are brief half-formed ideas
that you aren't even sure you really believe. I just love comments.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sad, but maybe right.

According to CNN, the California Supreme Court rejected the notion that Proposition 8, "alters California's Constitution and, therefore, under state law, was a revision that requires a constitutional convention," but did not invalidate the marriages that took place before the anti-gay Proposition passed.

The Court explained that unlike the other cases to consider marriage equality, today's ruling, "the principal issue before [the Court] concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution."

The Court concludes that the effect of Proposition 8 is not retroactive, but that Proposition 8 indeed amended, rather than revised, the California constitution. This seems to be a very California law specific question, with which I am not qualified to quibble.

Here's my reaction to all of this:
* This may very well be the right decision based on California law
* It is nonetheless a tragic day for gay couples in California who live through another official condemnation of their love
* It is incumbent on those of us who believe in marriage equality that we make the case that it is wrong, not unconstitutional, to exclude gay people from marriage. (Even if we believe it is, in fact, also unconstitutional.)

Oh yeah, the 185 page opinion is available here.

No comments: