More on Proposition 8

Here is the actual Proposition, as put to the voters.

Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California? [Source]

To me (and apparently to many other folks) the clear intent was to eliminate the right(s) of same sex couples. It's been some months since I've read the voter pamphlet, so I was a bit surprised today when I re-read the voter guide:

Proposition 8 is about preserving marriage; it's not an attack on the gay lifestyle. Proposition 8 doesn't take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, "domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits" as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this. [Source]

I suppose I discounted that statement when I first read it, since it seems to be at odds with the language of the proposition, and indeed the construct "preserving marriage" still does not seem to equate to codifying the 'California law dictionary definition' of the word 'marriage'. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong. Still, I don't recall any Proposition 8 proponents making a big deal about the meaning of the word marriage, the arguments were always about the institution of marriage, which they wanted to keep away from Teh Gay.

Of course, the basic problem is that to actually eliminate rights would have required revising the California Constitution, which cannot be done by ballot initiative (We can only add amendments to the Constitution that do not substantively change the meaning of other parts of the Constitution). It was almost logical of the Court to recognize that since the key didn't fit the lock the only thing to do was to find a lock that fit the key.

The court found that by narrowly reading the proposition on one hand, and finding a very narrow right they could leave Proposition 8 attached to the Constitution, but with a net effect of "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry" meaning only that the State would not use that word. (Except, of course, for those same-sex couples who were married before Prop 8 passed.) For me, I still will call same-sex couples married if they want me to.

This ruling reminds me of a teenage boy trying to get to second base by arguing the meaning of "When we know each other better."

Proposition 8, as seen by the court could be re-written as:

Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to be called 'married' providing that the word marriage may only be applied if the couple is a woman and a man, excepting for those same-sex couples who were legally married between June 16, 2008 and November 5, 2008, who's marriages are valid and recognized, and may use the word 'married' to describe their relationship, so there.

Yeah. This makes no sense.

Thu, 28 May 2009 17:05:21 PDT - Link