An Amazing Victory for Equality

Guest post by Danielle from I Can't Believe This Shiz!!!! (Cross-posted on I Can't Believe This Shiz).

The state of California, although often bizarre and downright rediculous in its lawmaking, has taken advantage of its trailblazing status by deciding to be a leader in the fight for true equality. Yesterday, the state Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, which according to msnbc.com, is a measure on a 2000 ballot that reinforced a 1978 law defining marriage in California as existing only between one man and one woman. Speaking through Chief Justice Ronald George, the court declared that "an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

You may wonder why a straight woman in her 20s would care at all about an issue like gay marriage. Well, as a law student and someone who has studied and been fascinated by both American constitutional law and civil liberties for years, I can say that this has never been a gray issue for me. Rather, it is very simple, and very black or white. For me, this is a purely legal issue. In my opinion, although this case dealt with state law, the idea that the majority, either through ballot or through its lawmakers, can limit the rights of any individual or group because of any status has been vehemently and totally discredited in federal Supreme Court jurisprudence. Of course, the most obvious examples that come to mind are issues of race and gender.

But, the Court has spoken specifically about liberty interests in family relationships, by holding in the Myer and Pierce cases that there is a fundamental right under Due Process to marry, raise children, and educate them. In the case of Moore v. East Cleveland (1977), the court expanded that right by declaring that there is an individual liberty interest in defining the family and determining how it is going to operate. (This case dealt with a housing ordinance that limited occupancy of homes to the "nuclear family," which worked against a woman raising her nephews, who of course were not her children.) In terms of the right to privacy in general and gay rights more specifically, the court held in Lawrence v. TX (2003) that liberty includes self autonomy which includes belief and intimate conduct.

When asked to announce a new fundamental right, the court examines precedent and other factors to decide whether previously announced fundamental rights should be expanded to include a new one. In this case, the issue would be, "Should the previously announced fundamental right to marry and raise a family be expanded to include relationships consisting of two individuals of the same sex?" Although the Court dropped hints in Lawrence that is was not speaking of gay marriage, based on the Court's entire jurisprudence, were they to take on this issue, expanding the fundamental right to marry and raise a family to include the homosexual community would be a natural next step.

Anyway, although this victory could be short-lived, the statement made by the California Supreme Court can never be taken away.