Digest of Coverage, the Day After: California ruling ordering marriage redefinition
This post will be updated. Additional coverage may also appear in Headlines and the Marriage and Family Category.
Mercury News: California Supreme Court: State constitution gives gays the right to marry
For four years, the gay rights movement has clung to the hope that the California Supreme Court would reverse its flagging political and legal fortunes across the country and legalize same-sex marriage. By one vote, the strategy worked. And gay couples across California can get up this morning and plan their own June weddings for the first time in state history . . .
AP: Gay marriage opponents vow to fight Calif. ruling
. . . A conservative group said it would ask California’s Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That’s when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California’s constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.
If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices’ opinions to become final.
“We’re obviously very disappointed in the decision,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. “The remedy is a constitutional amendment.”
With a stroke of a pen Thursday, the Republican-dominated court swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple’s sexual orientation . . .
Houston Chronicle: Another Supreme Court Turns Legislative
In my opinion the action taken by the California Supreme Court yesterday, as with the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, only insured that this will continue with no resolution, and in the process created a distracting issue for the presidential campaign.
Mercury News: End of legal battle means political fight will start anew
Whenever gay marriage re-emerges so does fierce political warfare . . . Meanwhile, the California electorate is growing more Democratic and, polls show, more comfortable with the idea that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. A June 2007 survey of likely voters by the Public Policy Institute of California found gay marriage losing, but by a slim 48 percent to 46 percent. In 2000, the margin was 55 percent to 38 percent.
Huffington Post: California Supreme Court OKs Marriage for Gays - But It Ain’t Over Yet
Even the normally more conservative “Blue Dog” Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein recognized the ruling in a statement to this reporter:
The Court has affirmed that people of the same sex have the right to marry under the Constitution of the State of California. This makes the legal situation very clear. It’s become apparent to me that the views of Californians are changing in this regard, and becoming much more favorable with respect to recognizing the social and economic bonds that marriage provides — regardless of the sex of the individuals.
Atlanta Journal Constitution: Barr on gay marriage: California decision is how it’s supposed to work
Here’s the statement Barr’s issued . . .
The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.
“Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state.
NY Times: Ruling May Revive Gay Marriage as an Issue
Gay marriage is an issue on which the three major presidential candidates — John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton — are pretty much in agreement. All oppose it, while saying at the same time that same-sex couples should generally be entitled to the legal protections afforded married couples. All think the decision should be left to the states . . . And not one has shown any eagerness to make the issue a priority. Senator McCain, for example, did not mention it in a speech he gave Thursday outlining what he wanted to do as president.
AP: Reactions to California Supreme Court gay marriage ruling
. . . “President Bush has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means.”
-White House Press Secretary Dana Perino
. . . “What an outrage. It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. … Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny.”
-James Dobson, chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family . . .
Religion Clause Blog: California Supreme Court Rejects Gay Marriage Ban, But No Impact On Religious Doctrines
. . . In response to the argument that sexual orientation should not trigger strict scrutiny because it is not an “immutable” characteristic, the majority said that: “California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes … and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control.” . . .
Wall Street Journal: Gay Marriage Returns
Just when the news was filling with stories about a Republican Party gasping for air, along comes the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision yesterday legislating gay marriage. The GOP certainly hasn’t done anything to deserve such luck.
ACLJ: CA Supreme Court ‘Overreached’ by Issuing ‘Flawed’ Decision on Same-Sex Marriage
“. . . This decision guarantees one thing: the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage once again moves to the forefront re-energizing the public and legal debate nationwide.”
Americans United for Separation of Church and State: California Marriage Decision Respects Boundaries Between Religion And Government, Says Americans United
Marty Lederman on the Balkinization Blog: The Most Important Aspect of Today’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision?
. . . it strikes me that the most significant legal development in the Court’s decision is that it is (to my knowledge) the first time any state or federal court of last resort has held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is suspect and thus subject to strict scrutiny under a constitutional equal protection clause . . .
Bruce Hausknecht reports on Citizen Link: California’s Supreme Power Grab
. . . One of the charges of English tyranny from the Founders that made its way into the Declaration of Independence was that colonial judges, appointed and paid by the king, were acting as extensions of the king’s will, and not as a separate branch of government. It is no less a tyranny that, at this point in history, we have a judiciary that in many cases wants to exercise the legislative function as an extension of the judicial. The Founders, as seen through the eyes of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist paper No. 78, believed that the judiciary’s interpretive function made it the “least dangerous branch” of government. The California decision makes that observation sadly laughable. The good news, however, is that even in California, the people are entitled to the last laugh . . .