On May 15, 2008, California became the second US state (after Massachuesetts, 2004) to have its State Supreme Court strike down legislative and ‘citizens’ referendum barriers against same-sex marriage.

In In RE Marriage Cases [2008],  the Supreme Court of California revisited its own earlier decision in  Lockyer versus City and County of San Francisco. Then, it had decided to freeze further San Fransisco recognise of same sex marriage licenses until the Supreme Court could determine the constitutionality of same-sex marriages in that particular state.

Significantly for critics of the incremental approach to same-sex marriage which advocates that one should first insure that one’s jurisdiction has passed incrementalist civil union or registered partnership legislation for the purposes of  providing substantive equality for same-sex couples and interim parallel ceremonial recognition to existing civil marriage for heterosexuals, the Supreme Court of California recognised the existence of domestic partner (read: civil union) registries (1999) and relationship recognition and equality legislation (Domestic Partner Act 2003) both meant that same-sex partners had similar obligations to those of heterosexual married partners, as well as state-guaranteed rights.  However, given the long-term right-wing Republican federal ascendancy, the federal government is still rabidly heterosexist and also provides few instances of recognition for cohabiting heterosexual couples. 

Moreover, given the constructive role and preponderance of positive pediatric and developmental psychological research evidence, it was also established that same-sex-led families were entitled to the same protections that children in heterosexual relationships anchored through marriage were.  Given that Californian state law has recognised same-sex parenting in a number of statutes, and that domestic partnership status affords equal rights and responsibilities at the state level, the Supreme Court of California accepted the case for equality of appellant requests for same-sex marriages.

Moreover, same sex marriage would be civil marriage, and California has recognised civil marriage since 1872 (as New Zealand did, from 1847).  Moreover, the court also accepted that there were powerful civil rights and disability rights parallels between same-sex marriage bans and earlier bans against interracial marriage, as well as the case of one developmentally disabled woman whose right to marry was recognised.

Unfortunately, given the citizens initiated referendum industry, LGBT Californians will have to face “Proposition 22″, an anti-SSM initiative designed to reintroduce state statutory barriers to same-sex marriage, even given that the Supreme Court of California invalidated earlier results. At a time when similar Christian Right CIR addicts are trying to strike down legislative protections of childrens right to nonviolent parenting, our own LGBT communities should pay careful note to this.

While the New Zealand Christian Right has made no response, the US Christian Right hasn’t been so reticent. Focus on the Family leader James Dobson condemned the decision as undemocratic, given that it had struck down prior citizens referenda. Other Californian and US Christian Right leaders urged state constitutional amendments.

Meanwhile, there’s a mood of euphoria and celebration across the United States as the news spreads. Given the US Christian Right’s rampage against civil unions and same-sex marriage, I am sure that the rest of the world joins with me in congratulating the US LGBT movement and its allies on this notable victory against the forces of homophobia and religious fanaticism.

Recommended:

In Re: Marriage Cases verdict:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

Not Recommended:

Devon Williams: “California Rules in Favour of Same-Sex Marriage: Doctor Dobson Outraged” Citizen: US Focus on the Family: 15.05.08: http://www.family.org