Two snippets out of California:The Liberty Counsel, a Virginia-based evangelical group, has petitioned a California appellate court to delay equal marriage in California. The Liberty Counsel has asked the intermediate court to delay the implementation of the California Supreme Court's ruling that the state must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples beginning at 5:01PM on June 16. Liberty Counsel asserts that, because the ruling conflicts with current law, the state legislature needs more time to implement the changes. This argument is, of course, absurd; the California legislature has already legalized marriage equality two times, but its efforts were thwarted by the governor's veto. There is no indication that Liberty Counsel's legal challenge will succeed. No information is available on why an organization called "Liberty Counsel" is opposing liberty and equality for all Americans.
[For more, see Gay.com.]
In other news, Californians are expected to vote on a constitutional amendment that would, if passed, ban same-sex marriage in that state. However, this proposed amendment might cause a legal mess that could have homophobes wishing they had just let things be. For instance, it's unclear what would happen to couples married between June 15 and the November election. Would they be forcibly divorced? Would their marriages remain intact, but new same-sex marriages be banned? Would all same-sex marriages be converted to domestic partnerships?
An even messier prospect, and one that California homophobes should fear, was pointed out in the Washington Post: what if the constitutional amendment inadvertently bans all marriage, gay or straight? It could happen, says constitutional scholar David Cruz. The California Supreme Court's ruling said that same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples must be treated the same, and must be given the same options. The proposed amendment would not change that, it would only make same-sex marriages illegal. If gays and straights have to be treated the same, and same-sex marriage is illegal, the logical result is that no one would be allowed to get married.
So there you have it. Fundamentalist bigots are so dedicated to keeping loving couples from getting married that they are willing to risk abolishing marriage altogether.
[For more, see The Washington Post.]
UPDATE: Professor Cruz (mentioned above) has informed me that a more detailed explanation of how banning same-sex marriage in California might ban marriage for all can be found on his blog. I recommend taking a look.

1 comments:
The argument for how the proposed California constitutional amendment could end up barring everyone from marrying is spelled out in more detail in my blog Cruz Lines, http://www.cruzlines.org, at http://mylaw.usc.edu/blogCruz/1/2008/02/Law-of-Unintended-Consequences.cfm.
David B. Cruz, Professor of Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law
Post a Comment