Gay marriage legalized in California
By Brendan Loy
The California Supreme Court has overturned the state's gay marriage ban...
...and it's not even the top story on Drudge. (Nor is Mark Halperin paying enough attention to realize that Florida, not California, is the "Sunshine State," last time I checked.) I'm not sure if this reflects a decrease in the level of national polarization caused by this issue, or if everybody is just too wrapped up in talking about President Bush's "bulls**t...malarkey" at the Knesset to pay attention.
But anyway: there it is. Gay marriage, legalized in California, by order of the court. Andrew Sullivan has more, of course, as does Boi From Troy.
Here's the opinion (PDF), which I haven't read, and probably won't for the moment. (After work, I'm going to see James Carville tonight.)
This being California, there will undoubtedly be a state constitutional amendment initiative to overturn the ruling -- but, on that front, Sullivan notes:
One key fact: the ruling takes effect in 30 days - which means thousands of couples will be able to marry long before any initiative attempts to reverse it. So the initiative question becomes: do you want to divorce thousands of already-married couples? Or do you want to keep things as they now are? That's a big advantage for the pro-equality forces.
Indeed.
UPDATE: More from Sullivan -- including a point that seems to contradict the above-quoted passage, though I may be misunderstanding him -- in a post titled "Judicial 'Activism'?":
As usual, the lazy critics are uninformed. The California court has not over-ruled the legislature: in fact, the legislature has voted for full marriage equality twice already. And the court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?
One other political note: the Republican governor of the state, Arnold, has already come out against the ballot initiative designed to reverse this ruling. And the initiative will not be able to affect the thousands of marriage licenses that will be granted before then. So the legislature, the governor and the court have all now supported equality. So back to the people ... for one last chance to keep the stigma in place.
Speaking of the Governator, he has reiterated that he respects the Court's ruling and opposes its reversal.
My other sites