Or, if you prefer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3y3EJSNQBU
But, anyway. To the point. California's Proposition 8 has been deemed unconstitutional by a Federal Court. As such, today is a good day. And of course, being the nerd I am, I promptly started googling for the Court Record on the ruling. Surprisingly, it wasn't terribly difficult.
I'm thinking I'm going to like this site (having just discovered it for this), but I digress. While the ruling is a huge step forward, it has been appealed, and would've been even if the ruling had gone the other way. And, because of this, we simply have the ruling to help us sleep at night. No legal changes have happened yet.
Which sucks, honestly, but them's the breaks. Really, it's all about baby steps at this point. The key is that this ruling gives a logic to why Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and the reactions to the ruling mostly go to show that the opposition doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.
Part of the reason that Prop 8 was overturned this time around was because of how the argument was presented on both sides, but the main key is how the plaintiffs (the ones opposed to Prop 8) structured their argument.The key here was the argument that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment, namely the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause, which, for the unfamiliar state the following:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Due Process clause argument can be summed up quite easily: people are being denied a right without any due process at all.
In addition, the Equal Protection clause is right on the money. After all, there are many legal and financial benefits to being married - from joint tax returns to visitation rights. In addition, since LBGT is a 'suspect class' - defined on Wikipedia as "any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination" - any law that references them should be under heightened scrutiny. Therefore, because Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection clause by not allowing everyone to marry the person of their choice, it is unconstitutional.
The opposing argument, however, didn't have such nice ground to stand on - arguing on the grounds of (yet again) "Gay marriage ruins marriage for the rest of us" and "Gay families won't raise children correctly."
So, it judging by what I've read in the court record, it was a pretty one-sided argument. However, judging the reactions I've seen online by people who oppose this decision, the arguments are getting flimsier, and come in one new flavor:
"This one judge is overturning the will of the people. This isn't what democracy is about." Well, yes. This one judge did say the people made a mistake. And, well, that's the POINT OF THE HIGHER COURTS. It seems like every time a court rules against a popularly enacted law, we get this reaction. See, the problem is that the Judicial system was put in place to "protect the minority from the will of the majority" (which I probably quoted slightly wrong. But, still). Prop 8 was the majority overstepping its bounds, and it fell to the courts to put things right. I've heard arguments that this is going to lead to a slippery slope leading to the courts taking away our ability to vote. And, well, I can argue for that, at least in the case of the Proposition system. The ability to create legislation through popular vote, to me, defeats the point of having state legislators. However, the ability to vote is a fundamental right granted to us by the Constitution (and Amendments if you aren't a white male) - that's not going anywhere any day soon.
So, for now, those of us who believe in equality can take a breathe, sit back and celebrate this victory, and wait for the next ruling. Everyone, go out and have a gay 'ole time! (pun totally intended.)
