Cooler but still well above normal this week

MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all. 

Turn Up Your Support

The California Supreme Court upheld a
voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also
decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot
before the law took effect will stay wed.


      Demonstrators outside the court yelled "shame on you!" Gay
rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying
they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to
repeal the ban.


      The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an
argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the
California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a
dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.


      The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot
box, to change their constitution.


      "In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint
is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution
through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of
this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound
to uphold it," the ruling said.


      The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to
whether they agree with the voter-approved Proposition 8 or
"believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."


      They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the
principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution,
setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."


      The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea
of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco
courthouse awaiting the ruling. 


Holding signs and many waving
rainbow flags, they yelled "shame on you." Many people also held
hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.


      Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa, Maine, Vermont,
Massachusetts and Connecticut.


      The court said it is well-established legal principle that an
amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters
intended it to apply retroactively, and there was no such clear
indication in Proposition 8.


      That provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married
in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that
wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay
marriage.


      "It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is
far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead
plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20
years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for
equality every day."


      Also in the crowd gathered at City Hall, near the courthouse,
were Sharon Papo, 30, and Amber Weiss, 32, who were married on the
first day gay marriage was legal last year, June 17.


      "We're relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a
hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to
marry those they love," Weiss said.


      "I feel very uncomfortable being in a special class of
citizens," Papo said.


      A small group of Proposition 8 supporters also had gathered
outside the court to hear the ruling.


      "A lot of people just assume we're religious nuts. We're not.
But we are Christians and we believe in the Bible," said George
Popko, 22, a student at American River College in Sacramento, where
the student government officially endorsed Proposition 8.


      The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was
unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many
same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote
on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. 


When it was, gay
rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was
improperly put to voters and amounted to a revision - which
required legislative approval - not an amendment.
      

That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.
     


 "After comparing this initiative measure to the many other
constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in
numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8
constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional
revision," the ruling said.


      Justice Carlos Moreno wrote the dissenting opinion disagreeing
that the proposition did not change the constitution's equal
protection clause. 


He said the law denying same-sex couples the
right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that
underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a
"drastic and far-reaching change."


      "Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different
from promising equal treatment for all," said Moreno, who had been
mentioned as a possible contender for the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally
different from ensuring truly equal treatment."

Gallery

Politics and Government News

Social Issues

The California Supreme Court upheld a
voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

California high court upholds gay marriage ban

Go Deeper.

Like this?

News you can use in your inbox