Boston Divorce Lawyer – Boston Divorce & Family Law Attorney Blog

I fully support the initiative to place the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act on the ballot.  Last year, California approved Proposition 8 based largely on the idea that allowing same-sex marriage is detrimental to the sanctity of marriage.  Marriage is sacred and needs to be protected from perversion – so goes the argument.  That is why it makes sense to support the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act.  It takes Proposition 8 one step further by banning divorce in the state of California.  If that doesn’t protect the sanctity of marriage, I don’t know what will.

You can read the proposed amendment here: http://rescuemarriage.org/2009/08/22/2010-california-protection-of-marriage-act/

Last week, voters in Maine struck down a law voted on by their legislature and signed into law by their governor, granting same-sex couples equal rights under the law.  This is very disappointing and as I’ve said before, perhaps the rights of the minority should not be placed in the hands of the majority.  If this was the case, we would still have segregation of schools, no voting rights for blacks and women and we’d still prohibit interracial marriages.

I came across a paper by Jeffrey Lax and Justin Phillips, “Gay Rights in the States: Public Opinion and Policy Responsiveness,” published recently in the American Political Science Review.  Here is a chart from that paper illustrating the support for same-sex marriage by varying age groups (click to enlarge):

What this tells us is that in 15-20 years, when the more tolerant 18-29 yr olds become the average age group, same-sex couples will have equality.  This gives me hope but it sure is a long time to wait.

New Hampshire will be the 6th state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage.  The other states are Massachusetts,  Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa.

I think the tide is starting to turn in favor of equal rights and it makes me proud of our nation.

I’m reminded of Martin Niemoeller’s poem and how we should fight for equality even if it doesn’t directly affect us.

“They came first for the Communists, 
       and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
      and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
      and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
      and by that time no one was left to speak up.” 

Today the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, a ballot initiative voted on by the people of California to define marriage as that of one man and one woman.  Many same-sex marriage supporters sees today’s ruling as a defeat.  However, I want to see it from a different angle that perhaps could ultimately help the same-sex marriage cause.

[warning: heavy legalese to follow]

One of the legal challenges that same-sex marriage supporters have is defining the gay community as a suspect class of people (e.g.: women and ethnic minorities).  A suspect class of people are ones that have defined traits that subject them to discrimination.  When the Supreme Court of the United States looks at an issue, they first look to see whether they’re dealing with a suspect class of people and also whether they’re dealing with a fundamental right.  Marriage is a fundamental right.  What’s unclear is whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right.  If a same-sex marriage case ever made its way up to the Supreme Court, it could have the ability to dictate how individual states must treat same-sex marriage.  In effect, individual states would no longer be able to defined marriage.  This could either be a widespread victory for same-sex marriage supporters or it could also be a crushing defeat if the Supreme Court ruled the other way.

Today, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 is legal and therefore there will be no more same-sex marriage in California.  But they also ruled that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages that were performed during the 5 months period was legal and will continue to be valid.

As I said, the trouble is defining gays and lesbians as a suspect class of people.  Now, with the California Court ruling, I believe proving gays and lesbians to be a suspect class of people is no longer necessary.  The California Court, by allowing the 18,000 same-sex marriages to exist, now created a subset of people in a group that has certain rights and all others who do not.  There is no rational basis for this distinction.  This is an Equal Protection violation of the United States Constitution.  I believe that the California Court, the same one who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, actually knew what it was doing by removing the hurdle of showing a suspect class and instead have reclassified it as an Equal Protection issue.

Ultimately, I can’t tell the future and I don’t know whether the new challenge in California will be from the ballot box, the legislature or the courts.  I do know that the fight isn’t over in California.

There’s a lot of news from the same-sex and gay marriage front lately.  I just want to provide the facts here and see where this all goes.

Iowa gave gay couples the right to marry this month through their Supreme Court decision that struck down the laws against gay marriage.  Iowa will begin to allow same-sex marriages this month.  Opponents of the high court decision is already gearing up for a battle by getting support to pass a constitutional amendment (similar to what they did in California).  However, the fastest a constitutional amendment can be passed would be in 2012.  So the fight is not over in Iowa.

Vermont, the first state to offer same-sex civil unions, as of today, is the first state to allow same-sex marriage not through the courts but by a vote of the legislature.  This means that a constitutional amendment in Vermont to outlaw same-sex marriage is highly unlikely and gay marriage is here to stay in Vermont.

As of today, these states allow same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa.