Our community was overjoyed by the California Supreme Court's decision May 15 that overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The court ruled that gay couples have a constitutional right to wed and, in a few weeks, the nuptials are scheduled to begin throughout the state.
California's high court is not a liberal panel of jurists. It is a conservative court made up of six justices appointed by Republican governors and one justice by former Democratic Governor Gray Davis. Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the 4-3 majority opinion, acknowledged in an interview with the Los Angeles Times that the decision was one of his most difficult. But it was the right decision, at the right time, by the right court.
"The decision is a powerful affirmation of love and commitment," Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a conference call last week. "We are so proud of the court standing up for fairness and opportunity. It's a great day for families in California."
The marriage decision began with Mayor Gavin Newsom's courageous decision when, more than four years ago, he ordered city officials to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Newsom's move set in motion the chain of events of the legal case, which was argued brilliantly by City Attorney Dennis Herrera and his chief deputy, Therese Stewart; Minter; and other attorneys representing the plaintiff couples. Fittingly, the court soundly rejected the specious arguments made by the anti-gay groups; and while we were doubtful at the conclusion of the oral arguments that we would win, we were happy to have been wrong in this instance.
Significantly, the ruling also placed sexual orientation into what is known in legal parlance as suspect class status – along with gender, race, and religion – which means that any California law discriminating against gays and lesbians will be judged under what is known as strict scrutiny. This part of the ruling has implications far beyond marriage; it covers any discriminatory law involving any issue. That's huge, and it marks the first time a state high court has ruled in this manner.
"It's a very significant ruling," Minter noted.
Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino, writing on Slate.com, explained the importance of strict scrutiny: "Rational basis review is so lenient that it almost always results in the validation of state policies, while strict scrutiny is so stringent that it almost always results in the invalidation of such policies."
Another attorney, Don Willenburg, with Gordon & Rees, told the Recorder newspaper that the court's strict scrutiny would make it nearly impossible for the state or local governments to undo laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination.
Of course, as we have been reporting all year, the anti-gay groups are not giving up. The proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage is likely to be on the November ballot (signature verification is now taking place) and defeating it will be a challenge to which the community must rise. Almost to a person, gay leaders expressed tremendous relief and happiness with the Supreme Court decision, and just as quickly noted that "the fight is not over."
They're right. But the community should take a moment to savor and reflect on such a complete legal victory.