Tag Archives: marriage equality

CA Denies Stay in Marriage Ruling

Posted on by

The California Supreme Court today has denied a request to delay same-sex marriage until after the November elections. Same-sex marriage becomes legal in California on June 16 at 5:00 p.m. This is great news.

The anti-gay folks had wanted the court to hold off on legalizing same-sex marriage until California voters had a chance to vote on the constitutional amendment in November, saying that it could cause confusion if same-sex couples got married and then a constitutional amendment banned those marriages. The court denied the request, unanimously, with a simple order. [Update: Originally I had thought it was 4-3, but that was only on the request for rehearing. The decision to deny the stay was unanimous.]

The court didn’t provide its reasons, but here’s one: getting a constitutional amendment on the California ballot requires the signatures of just 8% of the voters. If the court granted a stay pending the outcome of a constitutional amendment initiative, what’s to say that any group that disagrees with a court decision can’t get 8% of the voters to sign a petition for an initiative overturning the decision, and then request a stay? Granted, the current situation is unusual, because the signatures have already been gathered. But if you can just delay implementation of any court decision by saying, “Hey wait – we’re about to try to overturn your decision via ballot, can you wait a few months?” that doesn’t seem fair.

Also, what if the court granted a stay and the amendment then failed? Then same-sex couples would have lost several months in which they could have been married, all because they were held hostage to 8% of the voters who signed a petition. That doesn’t seem fair either. I’m glad the court seemed to agree.

Over the next few months, gay couples will get married in California, and Californians will see that the world hasn’t fallen apart.

Paterson’s Marriage Decision II

Posted on by

Richard E. Barnes, the executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said yesterday in response to Governor Paterson’s new policy interpretation recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages:

“No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose.”

He doesn’t seem to understand that the “entire meaning and purpose” of marriage has been altered many times over the years — over centuries, in fact — and that this is not because of a “single politician or court or legislature,” but because of the evolution of society. Marriage is no longer about the joining of two families for economic benefit; it’s no longer about dowries and the subsuming of a woman’s legal identity into that of a man; it’s no longer about the survival of your tribe. For some people it’s not even about having children. Marriage can be about having children, and raising a family, and it usually is. But not always. It can be about happiness and personal stability. It can be about economic benefits. People get married for all sorts of reasons today, and liberalized divorce laws attest to how much society’s definition of marriage has changed over the years.

Seriously, I wish some of these people would do some actual thinking sometimes, before or instead of running their mouths.

Also from the Times today on the governor’s decision: how the governor came to support gay rights early in his career, how same-sex marriage opponents face an uphill battle in challenging the decision, and an editorial on how this is a step closer to justice.