Breaking: CA Court: Anti-gay marriage statutes constitutional

The ruling in the consolidated marriage cases came down this afternoon.  The result is not good for us gays.

We conclude California's historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class, and thus we analyze the marriage statutes to determine whether the opposite-sex requirement is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.  According the Legislature the extreme deference that rational basis review requires, we conclude the marriage statutes are constitutional.  The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions.  That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.

How disappointing.  I'm digesting the opinion now (it's big:  128 pages).  Link here (pdf).  A Word link is available here, look for case number A11044.

•  Discuss

  Of course the CA Supreme Court will have the final say, but I would have rather gone in with a win than with a loss.

  by PeteyP on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:38:15 PM PDT

  •  The Supremes will likely do the same

    Although I fail to understand why the test is "rational basis" when it involves a right so fundamental under common law and statutory law -- the right to marry.

    by PoorLonelyChild on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:44:59 PM PDT

    •  aoeu

      There is no rational reason to mix white blood and black blood, activist judges be damned.

      (that was obviously nasty, nasty snark.  fuck you CA)

      by TealVeal on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:57:44 PM PDT

•  Well

  The activist legislature tried legislating from the legislature, but Arnold said it should be up to the courts.

  by jfern on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:39:46 PM PDT

  •  nope

    Arnold said it should be up to the voting public.  Since the voters rejected a ballot initiative Arnold refuses to sign legislation.

    by juls on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:44:16 PM PDT

    •  Arnold supports...

      ...tyranny of the majority.

      by MNW on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:47:17 PM PDT

      •  Except

        just recently we had our first statewide poll that showed a purality being in favor of marriage equality.    Things are changing and for the better.

        by juls on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:52:08 PM PDT

    •  That, plus

      Plus he said that the issue was before the courts and they will be the ultimate decisionmaker.

      Pass the buck.  Political cowardice.

      by PeteyP on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:54:15 PM PDT

    •  That is BS

      Because, instead of vetoing it, he could have had it become a proposition, and let the people vote on it.  The Governor has that power.

      by marchmoon on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:54:47 PM PDT

•  sigh

  plus ca change plus le meme chose.

  by terrypinder on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:40:44 PM PDT

•  Pigs all n/t

  by MNW on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:45:57 PM PDT

•  Everything they say there

  it makes sense to me.

  I rabidly painfully disagree with it, but it makes sense.

  I think it comes down to what the legitimate government interest is.

  What does a government get out of two people being married?

  Maybe someone can explain this so I can understand it better.

  by Tamifah on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:46:38 PM PDT

  •  Government

    gets simplified inheritance rules, simplfied child custody situations including legal paternity, and simplified property laws in cases of divorce.  

    I've watch both long time unmarried couples with children split and married couples-- it is far easier to divorce than "break-up" when there are kids and property.

    by Lollipops on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:54:03 PM PDT

  •  Huh?

    I think it comes down to what the legitimate government interest is.

    What about the legitimate interests of those wishing to contract in legal marriage?

    As for legitimate government interest...

    One would have to examine every statute pertaining to marriage in order to determine the government's legitimate interest in each. It's different for just about every statute.

    What's the legitimate government interest in declaring that a legally married spouse has the legal authority to make medical decisions for their incapacitated partner?

    What's the legitimate government interest in declaring that a legally married spouse has the legal authority to claim the body of their deceased partner?

    What's the legitimate government interest in declaring that a legally married spouse is immune to inheritance taxes involving their deceased partner's estate?

    What's the legitimate government interest in declaring that a legally married spouse is entitled to the Social Security benefits of their deceased partner?

    by MNW on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:57:49 PM PDT

    •  if I'm understanding this correctly

      and I've been a 1L for about 2 weeks, so I'm not, then they're reviewing it under the lowest level of scrutiny, meaning that pretty much any justification for the law that isn't facially absurd will fly. That's what the bit about it not discriminating against a suspect class is for.

      by AnnArborBlue on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 04:01:06 PM PDT

      •  basically

        homosexuals aren't part of a suspect class and thus the level of scrutiny drops to rational basis. The government just has to prove that they believe they are acting in the states interest rather than actively trying to discriminate. They don't actually have to prove that what they are doing is really in the states interest.

        by Jett on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 04:28:50 PM PDT

    •  So I've been thinking about government

      and government's only role and interest is in helping us exercise our rights.

      So.

      I want to get married.

      by Tamifah on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 04:16:46 PM PDT

      •  Well...

        ...I wouldn't say that's government's only role.

        But as our government, it has a duty to serve us, as equally as it serves everyone else. It has a responsibility to be representative of everyone...not just the majority and who the majority votes to represent them.

        by MNW on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 04:38:10 PM PDT

    •  What's common to all these questions

      Is that without legal marriage, every time one of those situations (which basically amount to "when things go wrong") comes up, the nature of the couple's relationship would have to be determined through litigation in order to make a decision.  That litigation would be mostly "he said, she said" in nature.  Legal marriage specifically defines the rights and responsibilities of all those who enter into it, so everyone knows where they stand.  There's a legitimate government interest in keeping the courts from being flooded with highly contentious cases, and providing a way to let everyone know where they stand furthers the legitimate government purpose of promoting the common welfare.

      by ebohlman on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 05:03:19 PM PDT

      •  Civil union?

        Has that term been used regarding a relationship between two men or two women who want "government" to recognize their "union" or "partnership"?

        by ah on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 06:00:08 PM PDT

        •  Civil union...

          ...is a farce!

          Until the federal government recognizes civil unions as equivalent to civil marriage, civil unions are nothing more than a pathetic ploy to try and quell the demands of gay people to be treated equally, while at the same time attempting to quiet the religious bigots who think they own the word marriage.

          Civil unions are a separate AND UNEQUAL designation and are akin to having gay water fountains and straight water fountains.

          I am married.

          I am married in my heart.
          I am married in the eyes of my church.
          I am married in the eyes of my God.

          I AM MARRIED.

          Why should the (state) government recognize my marriage as a civil union, while recognizing the marriages of others as a civil marriage?

          by MNW on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 05:53:29 AM PDT

•  Unbelievable

  The fucking legislature passed gay marriage on both houses of the legislature! And Arnold vetoed it.

  You can't win with these people. It's either activist judges or it's activist legislature.

  by michael1104 on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:49:01 PM PDT

•  Damn

  Oh well, they did the classic method of ruling in the narrowist possible way.  They just didn't find enough basis for discrimination in the historical definition to expand it.

  This was highly foreseeable as marriage regulation lies with the States, is statutory, and the courts hate to rule on "Family Law", preferring always to leave that to the Legislatures. California with its very statutory inclinations would be most likely to have this result--and did.  Damn.

  by Rolfyboy6 on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:49:30 PM PDT

•  Voting isn't enough

  That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.

  You need to get out there and make sure people get to the polls for Angelides.  He will sign the bill that Schwarzenegger vetoed.

  If you live in the SF Bay area, help me out.  Info is here, or email at email on my dkos page...

  by marchmoon on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:53:22 PM PDT

  •  That quote

    The court makes that statement as a justification, but it really begs the question.  Part of their job is to decide whether issues that already have been decided by "democratic processes" comport with overriding constitutional law.  

    Yes, I know they did do that analysis.  But they took the easy way out.

    by PeteyP on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:57:21 PM PDT

    •  totally passing the buck

      Your point is well taken.  We just need to eliminate the final roadblock in the "democratic processes.

      by marchmoon on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 04:03:25 PM PDT

•  This is the first district court of appeal

  It will go up to the CA Sct, I'm sure.  No different result, I expect.

  Didn't Arnold veto legislation such as the court says would be permissible, saying it was up to the courts to decide?  Unfortunate that he will not have to take a stand before the election.  Despite appearances, Arnold is a weasel.

  by robokos on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 03:59:49 PM PDT

•  CA courts: Shame

  by College Progressive on Thu Oct 05, 2006 at 04:18:39 PM PDT