Hey, wait a minute....

[brooksmoses]

From the Prop 8 ruling (which, in case you hadn't heard, upheld the amendment):

Instead, the measure carves out a narrow and limited exception to these state constitutional rights, reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples as a matter of state constitutional law, but leaving undisturbed all of the other extremely significant substantive aspects of a same-sex couple’s state constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and the guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

Does this mean that we will now -- well, as soon as someone files the right lawsuit -- have constitutionally-required civil unions in California, with all the state-mandated rights and protection of marriage? I can't see how it can mean anything else.

Edit to clarify: In particular, I read this as pretty clearly saying that the "equal protection" parts of the State constitution that they used last year in saying that existing domestic partnerships were insufficient are still just as valid as they were then, and explicitly laying down precedent that Prop 8 does not invalidate those parts. The obvious conclusion seems to me to be that, since the State now can't satisfy the requirements of that ruling by allowing same-sex marriage, it must now satisfy it by instituting same-sex civil unions that are legally equivalent.

It's not marriage, but at least it's still something.

(And, honestly, it strikes me as a bit of reasonably clever legal hair-splitting; they avoid a ruling invalidating the amendment that they presumably felt that they couldn't honestly uphold while adhering to their promise to uphold the constitution in all its imperfections, and yet in the process interpreted the amendment to mean, in a strictly legal sense, almost nothing.)

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

No, it means there's still domestic partnership. CA has never had civil unions (although I continue to run into sites which state we do).

As for it still being something... Well, I'd recommend studying the requirements of being in a DP, its recognition, and last years marriage ruling about why its not identical to marriage.

I've skimmed the ruling. Its a weasel ruling. The best interpretation I can get from it is "Well, we said its not fair, but ya'll voted in this here proposition and we cant invalidate it, so there."

Now that some of my rights have been stripped by majority rule, I cant wait to see who else gets that sort of treatment. But I can guarantee, there *will* be someone else...

[chinders.livejournal.com]

I don't think that Brooks was claiming that it was enough, or that it was equivalent. He was saying that it's not nothing, which is, so far as I can tell, true. I, too, think it's a weasel ruling, and am steaming mad about it. But I read this as lashing out at allies, which seems less than useful.

[brooksmoses]

(Could you please sign your name to anonymous comments, so I know who I'm talking to? Or are you explicitly choosing not to give your name?)

I think you've missed my point, though. I'm not talking about the domestic partnerships that existed previously (and presumably still exist).

What I'm saying is that, in the previous ruling that established same-sex marriage, the CA Supreme Court ruled (as you note) that domestic partnerships were not equivalent to marriage, and that the equal-protection rules of the state constitution said that wasn't good enough. As a result of that ruling, CA instituted same-sex marriages.

Now, in the text that I quoted, the Court is specifically saying that the parts of the equal-protection rule that meant that domestic partnerships weren't good enough are unchanged by this amendment. The only way to satisfy those rules and the Prop 8 amendment is to institute new civil unions which are legally exactly equivalent to marriage, and I think the Court in this language is all but telegraphing their willingness to rule positively on such a matter.

[necturus.livejournal.com]

If domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage, and equal protection rules of the state constitution say that's not good enough, yet the constitution as amended requires discrimination with regard to marriage...

... then it follows that no one in the state may legally get married.

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps. But wouldnt that require yet another legal challenge to get implemented?

Or, is the purpose of the weasel ruling to invite a Federal equal protection challenge? IIRC wasnt Colorado's amendment 2 struck on just that grounds?

(Yes, same anonymous, yes, declining to sign my name, no not intending to lash out at allies in either comment)