Prop 8 ruling

Today, the CA Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage, after it had been established by the the very same court. 

As much as I'm in favor of same-sex marriage, this ruling strikes me as reasonable.  The actual question being considered did not directly address same-sex marriage – instead it was a question about whether a too-significant change (a "revision") was being made to the CA constitution by the method of propositions.  (Propositions are not allowed to make radical changes to the CA constitution, only minor amendments; the system is pretty obscure as as I can tell.)  If the court had held that the change was too big, it could have invalidated the proposition.

I am not expert enough on the CA system to comment coherently on what constitues a too-radical amendment to their constitution to be passed via the standard proposition system, but this strikes me as a case where the political forces advocating either side of the argument are largely addressing the merits of Prop 8, not the actual legal question.  Both sides have a result they want to achieve more than wanting to preserve the CA constitution.

So, I am disappointed with the result, but not surprised by it, nor do I view it as a setback to the same-sex marriage movement.

Instead, I take heart in the other part of the ruling.  Some 17,000 couples or so were married during the short window.  The court found no reason to invalidate those marriages, since the language of Prop 8 did not address retroactivity directly.  After all, it was this same court, that ruled 4-3 that same-sex marriage should be available in CA.

Things are changing.  Just not overnight.

New England and marriage

New Hampshire is now in the marriage equality camp, joining Maine as states that passed it through legislative action.  Terrific.  Most of New England now.  Even New York, where outside of the city, it's pretty conservative, is considering a legislative change for marriage equality.  (Gov. Patterson is not especially popular, and I am not that optimistic that this will ultimately pass, but at least it's on the table.)

Is it a coincidence that these are the places that used to have moderate-to-liberal Republicans, and that most have been purged from the party?  I think not.  When Republicans are in the clear minority, and only appealing to their "base", then everyone else can choose not to worry about the "base" Republican position as much.  This is an oversimplification, but I would not be surprised if it happens elsewhere in the country for a while if the Republicans continue their current "purification" trend.

The senators from Maine are an interesting exception.  I wish I knew enough about the politics of Maine to know how they survive.