Yes, how troublesome that the California Supremes made a ruling about the California state constitution. Interlopers.
Before I get to the substance of the Post Editorial, let me say this about the "activist judges" nonsense. I could see that term applying if the Court, bored one day said, hey, let's make gay marriage legal! The Gays will be dancing in the streets!
No, what happened here and in other cases, a minority pressed for a legal decision about whether their constitutional rights were being infringed. And the court made a decision in response to the minority. That's their job.
To the editorial -- the Post says that the California supremes:
correctly recognized that government bears the highest burden if it decides to treat differently the relationships between opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
And so the California court ruled that the government did not meet that burden. And the Post wants to second guess -- i.e., "meddle" -- that decision. The Post makes an odd distinction, saying the U.S. Supreme Court acted correctly in finding that separate was not equal when it comes to school segregation (Brown v. Brd of Education) but that rationale can't apply to gay folk wanting to get married:
This is a far cry from the California experience with the rights of same-sex couples. The state's elected representatives passed sweeping legislation in 1999 that gave same-sex couples near legal parity with their opposite-sex counterparts; that landmark legislation has been amended over the years to expand the rights of gay couples. Before the court ruling, same-sex couples in California had virtually the same -- not separate, but the same -- legal rights as heterosexual couples, insofar as state law can grant that.
Emphasis added. The key words here are "near" and "virtually" the same rights. We gay folk are supposed to be grateful we're granted nearly and virtually the same rights as straight people. How dare we question whether or not that's okay in a society supposedly based on the notion of equal protection under the laws.
The California Court looked at the California state constitution and agreed separate is not equal. All three branches of California's government are now on record supporting the rights of gay people not to be discriminated against by marriage.
It's too bad the Post thinks that "virtually" equal is just fine for gay Americans.
No comments:
Post a Comment