Comments on: Poll: Californians Oppose Anti-Marriage Constitutional Amendment by Wide Margin http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/05/29/poll-californians-oppose-anti-marriage-amendment-by-wide-margin/ News and Opinion on Politics and Media Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:12:35 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Skeeter Sanders http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/05/29/poll-californians-oppose-anti-marriage-amendment-by-wide-margin/comment-page-1/#comment-517585 Skeeter Sanders Fri, 30 May 2008 03:51:54 +0000 http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/05/29/poll-californians-oppose-anti-marriage-amendment-by-wide-margin/#comment-517585 Given the fact that the California Supreme Court -- six of whose seven members were appointed by conservative Republican governors -- relied on the precedent set by the court in 1948 on interracial marriages, there's little doubt that any attempt to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry will ultimately fail. The court's 1948 ruling on interracial marriages -- adopted 19 years later by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia -- was based firmly on the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. Combined with a 1996 ruling by the U.S. high court in Romer v. Evans that states cannot single out gays for exclusion from constitutional rights enjoyed by everyone else, it is inevitable that if a proposed amendment to the California Constitution outlawing same-gender marriage passes, it will be challenged in federal court on Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection grounds. Those who oppose same-gender marriage have yet to prove that it harms opposite-gender unions. And they've yet to prove that to ban same-gender unions doesn't constitute a government sanction of a religious doctrine that condemns homosexuality as a sin -- a sanction that is barred by the First Amendment separation of church and state. The question, therefore, isn't IF same-gender marrriage will be legal in all 50 states, but WHEN. Given the fact that the California Supreme Court — six of whose seven members were appointed by conservative Republican governors — relied on the precedent set by the court in 1948 on interracial marriages, there’s little doubt that any attempt to deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry will ultimately fail.

The court’s 1948 ruling on interracial marriages — adopted 19 years later by the U.S. Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia — was based firmly on the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.

Combined with a 1996 ruling by the U.S. high court in Romer v. Evans that states cannot single out gays for exclusion from constitutional rights enjoyed by everyone else, it is inevitable that if a proposed amendment to the California Constitution outlawing same-gender marriage passes, it will be challenged in federal court on Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection grounds.

Those who oppose same-gender marriage have yet to prove that it harms opposite-gender unions. And they’ve yet to prove that to ban same-gender unions doesn’t constitute a government sanction of a religious doctrine that condemns homosexuality as a sin — a sanction that is barred by the First Amendment separation of church and state.

The question, therefore, isn’t IF same-gender marrriage will be legal in all 50 states, but WHEN.

]]>