Civil unions aren’t marriage
In a 3½-hour session that sounded sometimes like a law school seminar and sometimes like a radio talk show, the California Supreme Court this week wrestled with the question of whether the state Constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” requires the recognition of same-sex marriages.
The justices delved into whether sexual orientation is immutable, whether gays and lesbians constitute a “suspect classification” deserving of special protection by the courts, and whether a 1948 ruling against a ban on interracial marriage was a precedent for invalidating a state law that describes marriage as “a civil contract between a man and a woman.” But the central issue in the case was identified by Justice Carlos R. Moreno. Referring to the fact that California grants same-sex couples the benefits of marriage under the term “domestic partnerships,” Moreno asked: “Doesn’t this just boil down to the use of the M-word -- marriage?”
The best response came from the lawyer for the city of San Francisco, which briefly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. “Words matter,” Deputy City Atty. Therese Stewart said. “Names matter.”
Indeed they do. In 2006, New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled that “committed same-sex couples must be afforded on equal terms the same rights and benefits enjoyed by opposite-sex couples under the civil marriage statutes.” The Legislature then passed a civil union law. Last month, a commission assigned to evaluate that law found that civil union status wasn’t recognized by employers and was “not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status.” Some of the problems identified in the report can be traced to federal law; others reflect the fact that employers are forced “to try to fit a square peg, civil union, into a round hole, systems relating to marriage.” California’s domestic partnership law is subject to the same objections.
Ideally, full marriage rights for same-sex couples would come about through the political process. In fact, the Legislature has approved same-sex marriage legislation, only to have it vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the grounds that it conflicted with Proposition 22, a ballot question approved by voters in 2000. That proposition can be read either as a ban on all same-sex marriages or a refusal to acknowledge thoseentered into outside California. But even if the court took a narrow view of Proposition 22, it would have to overturn language in the state Family Code limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
It may be, as Justice Carol Corrigan suggested at this week’s arguments, that evolving public attitudes will eventually lead to same-sex marriage -- M-word and all -- without intervention by the judiciary. As we have said before, we don’t think same-sex couples should have to wait. In 1948, the court was accused of thwarting the will of the people when it struck down the ban on interracial marriage; it would face similar condemnation if it ruled that “equal protection of the laws” requires the same treatment for heterosexual and same-sex couples. But, as in 1948, the result would be the just one.
Get breaking news, investigations, analysis and more signature journalism from the Los Angeles Times in your inbox.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.