Jason P. Ruel
BellaOnline's Gay/Lesbian Relationships Editor
The California Supreme Court's recent decision concerning Prop 8 has some major repurcussions for those who legally married under the then legal gay amrriage status. The courts decision to leave alone, and not lay aside the 18,000 gay marriages performed during the months when gay marriage was legal took those marriages from legal limbo, to legal seperate but not equal status.
Proposition 8, passed in November 2008, stated in fourteen short words, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". These little words reversed a landmark legal status change in California. Previously in the year (May), the California Supreme Court in a close 4-3 decision, struck down the law known as Proposition 22 which prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriage. This ballot initiative garnered nearly 62% of the vote, whereas Prop 9 barely got 53% of the vote.
In it's ruling, the California Supreme Court upheld the voice of the voters, which was a handed victory for voting rights and the power of the vote, but also by allowing Prop 8 to stand, allowed for the first time in a long time the ability of the simple majority to take away a persons inalienable rights granted to them by law. What I mean by this, is that the voters of California, or roughly over half of them, were allowed to strip away someones rights granted to them by law. Normally, constitutional amendments or ballot initiatives to strip someone's rights require what is called a supermajority vote. A supermajority is 2/3's of the voters, whereas a simple majority is half plus one or 51% of the votes. What is wrong with this concept is the fact that voting tends to go in trends just as attitudes about morality do. To raise the bar to 2/3 makes sure that a simple swing in the morality of a state wont be able to deny a person their rights. Imagine if a simple majority could suddenly make it illegal for a black man and a white woman marry, or a chinese man and a mexican woman. People would be up in arms. But not for the gays.
The decision to allow the 18,000 marriages protects the rights of those who did not violate the law, but worked within the law to keep their rights and responsibilities. However, now the state has to take extra steps just for these people with regards to taxes, financial ties, medical ties, and familial ties. These responsibilities will cost money, probably millions, just for a small select group of persons. Instead of upholding the courts decision from May 2008, the courts caved and allowed a simple majority to strip all gay people of the rights they were teased with, and created a special second-class marriage for the 18,000 gay people who wed before November. THe other concerns is what will California do when gay couples who got married in one of the other 6 states that grants gay marriage move there? Will they deny them the right to have their legal marriage recognized? How will they stand up in court when a couple says they are not being protected equally under the law when there are 18,000 gay marriages on the books in California, and their marriage was completely legal and recognized as a marriage in 6 states and as a sivil union or domestic partnership in many others. Will California with its Domestic Partner Registry force them to become Domestic Partners instead of the rights and priveledges of gay marriage?
Sounds like instead of clearing up questions, new questions have and will be raised. How many more court battles must the bankrupt state of California endure before they make all people equal under the law? One, ten, one hundred? Makes more financial sense to allow all to be equal and make the tax money off of everyone!
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário