"I Got a Rock!": Why Proponents of Proposition 8 Clearly Lost Today

[mcguffin]

 As many of you know, I'm a constitutional law junkie.

Today, the California State Supreme Court handed down a 6-1 ruling on Proposition 8 in a set of three cases collectively known as Strauss. If you listen to the news, the supporters of Proposition 8 scored a win. Here's what the soundbytes say:
 

• Proposition 8 was upheld. The State of California

Comments

[muses_aria]

I really like the parallel that you draw between this decision and separate but equal. It is easy to see why people don't have cognitive dissonance in supporting that marriage should be man/woman because they can rationalize it as equal rights just under a different name. However, I think that it is a very big issue anytime two groups of people are given different rights, even in name. This has not worked so well for us in the past, and I don't think it is a good idea now. I think that it would just be easier to call every relationship contract something other than a marriage, but that's just my silly view of separation of church and state ;)

I also appreciated your delineation of the amendment and revision processes. I had forgotten the exact differences, and I think that it is an important issue in this case.

[Disclaimer: I've had my head stuck in I-O articles for the past few months and not closely followed the arguments.]

[mcguffin]

I totally agree. Either everyone should have access to the term "marriage" or the government should reserve "marriage" as a religious term where believers can recognize marriages as they see fit.

For example, the UU church has been performing same-sex marriages for decades. They may choose to recognize same-sex marriages, while Catholics limit it to opposite sex marriage.

All religions should be free to determine their own internal rules, but those rules shouldn't cross into the public sphere.

[chapel_of_words]

This also begs the inevitable question of whether this "by label" only really matters. The state may not issue marriage liscenses to same-sex couples - but will that keep them from referring to themselves as married? Will it prevent churches from advertising the marriage of Bob & Bill or Sue & Sally? Lessening free speech to prohibit people from calling themselves married *would* be a revision of the Constitution I'm pretty sure - so I'm not clear if at least in the public arena gays are as "married" as anyone else in discussion, dialogue, news stories and public announcements by private entities.

Tim C.

[mcguffin]

You've picked up on an interesting thread on the first amendment's connection.

I honestly don't know how that would fit in, but it's something that I'm going to mull over.

[chapel_of_words]

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the judges had that thought secretly in the back of their mind. We can stick to the Constitution and support Prop 8 as a 'labeling' effort, while affirming all the rights under a different 'label', then allow the people through free speech to make the labeling case worthless.

I haven't heard much from Prop 8 supporters - are any seriously digging through this and finding in it a loss, rather than a win? One might ponder if their intent was a little broader than simply trying to copyright the term "marriage" for the Mob F8cknuts.

Tim C.