Butch Wonders
  • Blog
  • Butch Store: Genderqueer Us
  • About
  • Contact

How to Understand Gay Marriage in California (Without Going to Law School)

2/7/2012

4 Comments

 
_ 
As most readers have heard, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling on Prop 8.  I know it's hard as hell to keep track of all the cases and ballot measures (let alone understand them), so I've written a step-by-step guide/timeline that you don't need a JD to understand.


State and federal courts: the basic setup

First, California state courts have three levels:
1. Superior court (lowest level, where trials happen)
2. State appellate courts (also called "district courts;" middle level)
3. California Supreme Court (highest level)

Then we have the federal courts.  Three levels there, too:
1. District courts (lowest level, where trials happen--not the same as #2 above, despite the name)
2. Federal appeals courts (also called "circuit courts," middle level)
3. U.S. Supreme Court

The California Supreme Court interprets California laws, deciding whether those laws violate the state constitution or the US Constitution.  When it comes to the California Constitution, the California Supreme Court gets the final say.  But not so for the U.S. Constitution; the federal courts get to have the final say over that. 

So it's important to understand that there are two kinds of "constitutional" violations that people talk about--the state constitution and the federal constitution--and a different set of courts gets the final say over each one.  Understanding all this will make it easier to follow my breakdown.  Okay, here you go:


California Gay Marriage Timeline

2000: California voters pass Prop. 22, which is a state law saying that "marriage" means one man and one woman. 

2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom issues same-sex marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite Prop. 22.

Anti-gay groups file lawsuits in SF superior court (state trial court), saying that Newsom's actions were illegal and the marriage licenses are invalid.  Newsom says that Prop. 22 is unconstitutional, and that it's not illegal to violate an unconstitutional law.

2005: The SF superior court says that Prop 22 is illegal.  Outlawing gay marriage is gender discrimination.  The anti-gays immediately appeal to the state appellate court. 

Before the state appellate court decides anything, the California legislature passes a bill saying same-sex marriages are allowed.  But a few days later, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoes it, saying the court should decide.

2006: The state appellate court overturns the lower court's decision.  It says that preventing gay marriage is not gender discrimination, that the state's interest in protecting the "traditional definition" of marriage is valid, and that the definition of marriage shouldn't be decided in court.   Of course, the gay rights lawyers appeal (those activist gays!) to the California Supreme Court.

2007: The California legislature passes another bill allowing same-sex marriages.  Schwarzenegger terminates this bill, too (HAHA, get it?  'Cause he's the TERMINATOR!?  Ha…  ha?). 

2008: The California Supreme Court rules on the Prop 22 case, saying that marriage is a fundamental right, and that voters can't just sweep it away.  After all, what if people voted to take away the freedom of speech?  You can't just "vote away" a fundamental right.  You have to actually amend the state or federal constitution.

So…  the anti-gay folks do exactly that, and propose an amendment to the state constitution.  (California lets its state constitution be amended by popular vote.)  This is what's known as Prop 8.  It's different from Prop 22, because Prop 22 was just a law; it didn't change the state constitution.

Prop 8 passes.  The California constitution now says that "marriage" means one man and one woman.  (Interestingly, this means that trans people who legally change their sex can get married, as long as it's to a person of the opposite sex.  Hmm...  a rare case of trans "privilege!")

2009: Gay rights lawyers file a suit in federal district court (the lowest level of federal court) saying that the California constitution now violates the US Constitution.  (See, states can say basically anything in their constitutions, as long as it doesn't violate the US Constitution.)  So that's how a state decision got into federal court.

2010: There's a trial in federal district court.  The judge (Vaughn Walker) rules that the state has no "rational basis" for denying a right (marriage) to a particular group (gays).  Even though sexual orientation doesn't get special constitutional protection under the law like race and gender does, you can't single people out for no good reason and deny them a right.

Anti-gay groups appeal to the Ninth Circuit (the federal appeals court), saying that Judge Walker got it wrong, and that there are good reasons for denying marriage to gays.  They also say that since Walker is gay himself, he was too biased to hear the case.

2012: Today's decision: the Ninth Circuit upholds the ruling.  They say that Judge Walker was fine to stay on the case (duh).  The big question is whether there was a rational reason to take away a right from a specific group of people.  The decision goes through all the supposed reasons for Prop 8 and says, come ON--banning gays from getting married doesn't promote ANY of these goals.  The only goal it DOES promote is harming a particular group, and that's not a legitimate/rational reason for a law. 

Next, the anti-gays will undoubtedly appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which may or may not take the case.  In a future post, I might talk a little more about this.  But for now, let's all bask in the happy afterglow of the Ninth Circuit's decision!

  

4 Comments
Lyndsay
2/7/2012 03:16:23 pm

It's a big step in the right direction. It's a shame same sex marriage is still not legal in California, even with the ruling. It's a damn shame with all the things that are wrong with this country, (the corruption, and poverty, the rich taking advantage of those with less) that this is what these people have to do with their time. Especially since most of what they rant about is religion based, and the most important lesson their bible is based on is love others.

Reply
Amy link
2/7/2012 08:19:41 pm

I love how a gay judge is too biased to judge on the case but a heterosexual one clearly isn't? Sigh.

Thanks for posting this, it all makes more sense to me now. Well, I mean, it's all stupid and doesn't but the timeline does. Glad we're at another good ruling now.

Reply
lg
2/12/2012 01:58:29 pm

ok, this was the clearest, most comprehensive explanation I have yet read of the events in California.

Reply
wdfortyplus
3/19/2012 01:05:31 am

Although I say my partner and me are married; we aren't officially. As much as I can see the importance of it all; I can also see how the 'pink pound' the government gains from adding another notch onto it's tax belt.

Dilema for me is that if we don't officially get married then should anything happen to either one of us; we don't get a say in the mattter etc,. More to the point that I don't want to just 'tick a box' for the sake of a government who wants to self pontificate.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    TWITTER
    FACEBOOK
    INSTAGRAM
    EMAIL ME
    Picture


    ​Blogs I Like

    A Butch in the Kitchen
    A Stranger in This Place
    Bookish Butch
    Butch on Tap
    Card Carrying Lesbian
    ​
    Chapstick Femme

    Effing Dykes
    Feral Librarian
    Lawyers, Dykes, and Money

    Mainely Butch
    Neutrois Nonsense
    Pretty Butch
       

    Categories (NOT up to date...  working on it)

    All
    Accessories
    Adventures
    Advice
    Bisexuality
    Blogging
    Books
    Butch Identity
    Cars
    Clothes
    Coming Out
    Community
    Dating
    Family
    Fashion
    Female Masculinity
    Fiction
    Friends
    Gaydar
    Gender
    Girlfriends
    Guest Posts
    Hair
    Health
    Humor
    Husbands
    Identity
    Interviews
    Intro
    Lgbt Community
    Lgbt Law
    Lgbt Relationships
    Lists
    Marriage
    Media
    Politics
    Polls
    Pride
    Pride Project
    Readers
    Relationships
    Religion
    Reviews
    Search Terms
    Shopping
    Silliness
    Social Change
    Ties
    Trans
    Work


    Archives

    September 2022
    May 2019
    February 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    March 2018
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011

    RSS Feed

 
  • Blog
  • Butch Store: Genderqueer Us
  • About
  • Contact