Just a thought on Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling in California.
There’s been a lot of talk about whether gay marriage should be allowed under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. I don’t want to say anything about that specific argument.
But please tell me how in California, with the Supreme Court recognizing the 18,000 same-sex marriages that already occurred, how they’re allowed to continue their marriage (with recognition from the government) with new same-sex couples not being able to get married. Is this equal protection?
My understanding of equal protection is that over time, people will be afforded the same protection under the law irrespective of gender, race, color or creed.
How is gay marriage not Constitutional in California, but being married to someone of the same sex is?
2+2=5 in the Golden State.
The court would have had to have overruled themselves when they declared that same-sex marriage was a right in order to annul the marriages given that Prop 8 did not have such language. It’s also very tricky to enact any kind of ex post facto law given the Constitutional prohibitions on them.