On Thursday, the California Supreme Court released an important judgment about Proposition 8 — the 2008 law banning same-sex marriage. The ban had been ruled unconstitutional, forcing the issue into the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Marriage equality advocates then filed a case against the Prop 8 defendants arguing they had no standing to defend a California constitutional amendment, as the state had decided to no longer defend Prop 8. This forced the 9th Circuit to go to the California Supreme Court.
Well, this complicated case has now reached its next stage. The California Supreme Court decided that supporters of Prop 8 did have legal standing to argue the case.
Had the Court ruled against them, the 9th Circuit most likely would have agreed with the initial federal judge, deeming the law unconstitutional. This seems like it would be a win for anti-gay groups, but it wouldn’t.
Now the case will go back to 9th Circuit where it is still very likely that the court will uphold the federal judge’s decision. This would mean that all constitutional bans on same-sex marriage within the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction could be deemed unconstitutional. This would be an incredible win for marriage equality and the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community.
Also, this case most likely will make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the California judge’s decision likely will be upheld. All bans on same-sex marriage across the country then would be deemed unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a right that cannot be impeded upon by government when it ruled against laws banning interracial marriage. Ignorance can and will be defeated. These intolerant groups have shown that they have absolutely no case to uphold the ban, and when the general public and the Supreme Court finally get to hear their anti-equality argument, the U.S. will be one step closer to the tolerant and equal society that so many have worked and died for.
Zachary Carrel is an anthropology and international and area studies senior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
TheJeff 6 months, 1 week ago
"This seems like it would be a win for anti-gay groups, but it wouldn’t." This particular ruling is a win for the people. Regardless of this particular case, what would be the point of referendum etc. if all it takes is a few state officials deciding they don't like it and won't defend it in courts?
I don't really have a strong opinion on gay marriage, but I do have a couple questions about words you used a lot. Equality/Rights: If it is an issue of equality, and marriage is a right, why are people only fighting for one more arbitrary group to be granted marriage? Why not argue that any group of any type of consenting adults can marry? If you only advocate expanding it to one more group (same-sex), and not others, then it seems like you're treating it more as a privilege. There's nothing inherently better about either argument, but the words don't match the actions in most arguments for same-sex marriage.
"intolerant/tolerant" Do you want to tolerate people being against homosexual marriage or laws that ban it?
baconbits 6 months ago
No form of marriage should be recognized by the government. Marriage is an institution of religion and should be instructed and maintained therefore. If people are seeking the protections of marriage through law, they will only be systematically oppressed by their situation.
The family unit should not be defaulted. This isn't only a war of sexuality, it's a war for the structure of human growth. Some people don't prefer to reproduce, some don't prefer to marry. We cannot institutionally punish anyone who goes against the common norm.
Frankjc 6 months ago
Yes the proponents of Prop 8 have standing, but the real issue is do they have a case? We will eventually learn that former Governor Schwarenegger and then Attorney General Brown were correct in refusing to defend Prop 8 in court because of the constitutional issues of due processand equal protection under law.Which they are sworn to protect) I believe that in refusingto defend DOMA President Obama is likewise upholding his duty to preserve protect and defend the constitution ofthe United States. In spite of this I am pleased that out of respect for the California Ballot Initiative process, The California Supreme court granted standing. This was important, but the fact remain that there is no rational basis for discrimination against homosexual other than personal animus against these individuals. The time of religion commanding a priviledged and determinitive status in law and social policy in America coming to an end. there is nothing to fear when peoples personal and constitutional rights are upheld. Personal animus should have no part in the equation as such sentiments are inherently unfair.