PropH8 Update

Back in 2008, if anyone remembers, California legalized gay marriage and found itself with an influx of couples traveling there to finally exchange their vows. But mere months later, voters ratified Proposition 8, which banned it once again.

Now, a heated trial has commenced over the constitutionality of the act, which effectively defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

According to the Associated Press, "The trial — the first in federal court to examine if the U.S. Constitution prevents states from outlawing same-sex marriage — has been on hiatus since late January, when Walker said he wanted to review the evidence before scheduling closing arguments."

There has been much controversy over the trial, even amidst the already controversial issue of gay marriage. Most experts agree that regardless of the ruling in the California Supreme Court, the debate of gay marriage will soon reach the federal circuits, and the federal Supreme Court.

Matt Coles of the Huffington Post had a few thoughts on possible Supreme Court rulings. "First, you can take a pure constitutional law perspective. As I said before, most constitutional lawyers think that discrimination based on sexual orientation should not be treated as generally constitutional. If the Court were to agree, it would be unlikely to uphold the marriage exclusions. But it’s not as if this is the only way to read the Constitution. There is a constitutional theory that says that all discrimination except discrimination based on race, maybe alienage, and sex should be treated as generally constitutional (the idea is that the 14^th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection, was really about race; most of the folks who subscribe to this view wouldn’t include sex either, but that constitutional ship sailed a long time ago). For the last 30 years or so, this narrow view of what kind of discrimination the federal Constitution prohibits has been doing better in the Supreme Court than the broader view. But there are times when the Court seems to be trying to chart a somewhat broader course."

The 14th Amendment's text is this: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, from where I sit, it looks as though Prop8, and other laws like it, are clearly abridging the privileges of US citizens and depriving them of equal protection of the laws. I don't know about the Supreme Court, but it seems to me that this issue is pretty clear.