Proposition 22 Unconstitutional: California Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

In a landmark ruling, the California Supreme Court today decided to overturn a ruling banning gay marriage in the state. Proposition 22 was passed by CA voters and defined marriage "between a man and a woman". The court ruled 4-3 that domestic partnerships aren't a sufficient substitute for marriage. Surprisingly, 6 of the 7 judges are Republican appointees, whose party has historically sided with such bans. One of three dissenting judges, Justice Marvin Baxter, stated while he agreed with some of the majority arguments, he thought the court overstepped its power and this decision should be left to the voters. Gov. Schwarzenegger has vowed to respect the court's decision, and would not support an amendment to the state constitution that goes against the court's ruling. Opponents of the ruling will attempt to enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution if they receive enough petition signatures for the November election, and will ask the court to stay the ruling until that time.

The positions of McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all very similar. Clinton and Obama support civil unions and legal rights for same-sex partners, while McCain supports the "legal rights" aspect, but not civil unions. Regarding the 1996 Defense Of Marriage Act, McCain supported the bill. Clinton and Obama were not in office at the time, and now want some changes made. Hillary wants a partial repeal, while Obama wants a full repeal of the law.

As for how this will play out in the general election in November, I doubt if any of the three candidates will take up this cause. In an election year with issues like war, a bad economy, job loss, gas prices, health care, etc., gay marriage is not an issue the public will rally around. With so much at stake, the blowback of making this issue a campaign theme would probably backfire on any candidate. Many voters have already spoken on how they feel about protection of marriage, and while this may be a joyous day in California, unless the Supreme Court takes up the matter, I doubt the country will let California decide.

Justice Baxter's dissent is probably the most interesting point in this ruling. Do judges have a right to overturn the will of the people? Many people have compared this case to when interracial marriage was illegal, and the Loving v. Virginia case itself was used as an argument for the merits of equal protection under the law. Activism from the bench has become an increasingly difficult debate, as referendums are being overturned in many cases. This has caused an uproar among voters who feel their voices are not being heard, either. So where do we go from here? The next months and years are sure to show the results of today's decision, and continue this debate until America finds some kind of closure.