Grading City Hall: How is L.A.'s city controller doing so far?


Opinion Editorial

Marriage rights for all

'Marriage," the U.S. Supreme Court ruled more than 40 years ago, "is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." And yet that right has been routinely denied to American men and women based on their sexual orientation. Government, which at its best acts to protect and extend the rights of its citizens, instead has long stood as an impediment to gay men and lesbians who just want to marry the one they love.

When it acted in 1967, the court banished laws that forbade interracial marriage and legalized the union of Mildred Loving, a black woman, and her white husband. In that same noble tradition, California's high court on Thursday ended the state's ban on marriages between couples of the same sex. Marriage, the court ruled, is "one of the fundamental rights embodied in the California Constitution" and may not be sublimated to bigotry or habit.

With its elaborate, careful ruling, the court cut neatly through the argument that gay and lesbian couples already enjoy the equal protection required by the state Constitution through civil unions that carry virtually the same rights. The very creation of a separate-but-nearly-equal category draws a distinction between marriage and civil unions, implying a lesser status for the latter, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote. Preserving marriage as an exclusive category, he wrote, "is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples."

Far from evincing judicial activism, the ruling titled simply "In re Marriage Cases" acknowledgedboth legal and home truths. Tradition often stands as an obstacle to eliminating discriminatory institutions. But the court recognized that rights must supersede customs, that just because marriage traditionally has been defined as a union between a man and a woman, it cannot be denied to same-sex couples by "tradition alone."

Those offended by gay marriage already are working for a measure that would let California voters consider a constitutional amendment to ban it -- and, in the process, overturn this ruling. The measure is planned for the November ballot. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he would oppose a ban, and his leadership on this matter is warmly welcomed. Public opinion has changed in this state since Proposition 22 prohibited same-sex marriage in 2000, and it continues to evolve toward acceptance of gay and lesbian rights. Thursday's ruling is another step in that march toward equality; voters would do well to revel in this historic moment and let this decision stand.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Gay marriage: Where to now?

    Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund questions the state Supreme Court's authority to alter marriage laws. Lambda Legal’s Jon W. Davidson predicts that more Californians will accept same-sex marriage before the November vote.

  • The board on gay marriage

    Since Proposition 22 passed, The Times hasn’t shied from supporting same-sex marriage.

  • A ruling Californians can love

    Amid the intellectual arguments over gay marriage, real couples have waited decades to finally be treated with dignity.

  • Does Hillary still think abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'?

    Does Hillary still think abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'?

    Taking as its text the controversy over the surreptitious video recording of Planned Parenthood officials discussing donations of fetal tissue, The New York Times is reporting that Republicans are altering their “script” on abortion.

  • Obamacare works in California. Here's why.

    Obamacare works in California. Here's why.

    Early reports that 2016 health insurance premiums would increase in double digits brought out the usual cadre of critics to claim — once again — that Obamacare is not financially sustainable. These proposed premiums were neither finalized nor did they reflect the full picture of rates in most states.

  • Local environmental activists don't get to make federal policy

    Local environmental activists don't get to make federal policy

    When President Obama recently approved Shell's request to drill in the Arctic, anti-fossil-fuel activists lobbied the Port of Seattle to deny docking rights to the oil giant's Alaska-bound rig. That effort failed. Then activists persuaded Washington State's King County to refuse the company a wastewater-discharge...

  • Government agencies shouldn't get keys to unlock our encrypted devices

    Government agencies shouldn't get keys to unlock our encrypted devices

    When the arrival of cheap mobile phones threatened to help criminals conceal their activities from the cops, Congress enacted a law in 1994 requiring that all phone lines be capable of being wiretapped. Now, with communications moving to the Internet, the increasing use of encryption on smartphones...

  • When 'innovation' means rule-breaking

    When 'innovation' means rule-breaking

    There is a simple reason the drug trade is so lucrative: Government mandates create a market opportunity for businesses willing to shirk the law.