Colorado Civil Unions Backers Seek Leverage From Prop 8 Ruling

10 thoughts on “Colorado Civil Unions Backers Seek Leverage From Prop 8 Ruling”

1. on the fact that California already has civil unions:

   The California justices declared the right to marry a person of one’s own gender a fundamental right, and they declared as well that it violates state equal protection doctrine for California to treat gay and straight couples differently for purposes of marriage. California has a domestic partnership law, which grants same-sex couples virtually all of the rights and obligations of marriage, making the current dispute one of nomenclature over the use of the word “marriage,” not about the substance of marriage rights. But as their colleagues in Massachusetts did a few years ago, the California justices treated this accommodation as a kind of “separate but equal” institution–which is to say, not an equal one at all.

   http://www.brookings.edu/opini…

   If anything, this might cause the anti-gay forces to dig in their heels and fight civil unions/domestic partnerships as leading to legal recognition of gay marriage rights even harder. But they are fighting a losing battle.

   This decision is more evidence that the day is coming ,  much sooner rather than later, when bans on gay marriage will seem as antiquated as the old bans on interracial marriage.  

   Log in to Reply

2. based on what I’ve read on the blogs, is that this ruling is specifically “You can’t take back rights that have been granted.” California had granted same-sex couples the right to marry, and Prop 8 took it away, therefore it was unconstitutional.

   Since Colorado has NOT yet extended the right, either as marriage or separate-but-equal civil unions, I don’t see how this ruling can directly help.

   Log in to Reply

   1. California’s constitution, like those in a number of states (including Iowa), has an expansive definition of equal rights.  Prop. 8 was an attempt to revoke a right granted via the state constitution, and the finding of the Court was that there was no compelling reason to do so.

      It’s the heightened scrutiny required for the revoking an existing right and the absolutely worthless legal case made by the anti-marriage plaintiffs that made this such a huge fail.

      Log in to Reply

3. will overturn this before it comes up for a vote here, which will make it harder to pass. So I don’t think it will help.

   Log in to Reply

   1. If I’m not mistaken, I believe John Roberts has a long history of doing pro-bono work for groups that were pushing equal rights for our LGBT brothers and sisters

      In addition, Anthony Kennedy, apparently, leans liberal on this issue

      Overall, what I’ve heard from Republican insiders is that John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy will favor Gay Marriage – it’s one reason why right-wingers are not hell bent to get this issue to the Supreme Court because the deck favors us (pro-gay-marriage supporters)

      Log in to Reply

      1. but I remain pessimistic.

         Log in to Reply

      2. If they take it up. Given the narrowness of the opinion, as I understand it, I have a hunch that the Supreme Court might take a pass on dealing with this issue at this time especially if there is a 6-3 majority for this particular theory, but not for a more expansive one.

         Log in to Reply

4. This might not be a complete victory, or a permanent victory, but today, it is a victory for those who are committed to justice. Today is a day to celebrate.

   Log in to Reply

5. and as William Sloan Coffin once said, “You cannot put the freeze on history.”

   The Republicans who realize this understand who will be left on the dust heap of history, and they prefer it not be them.  

   Log in to Reply

   1. are mainly indies these days. The base seems to be all about the dust heap of history, longing for a return of the fifties when blacks and women and gays knew their place. Heck, you didn’t have to allow Jews in your neighborhood if you didn’t want to.  

      Log in to Reply