In a 6 to 1 decision, the California Supreme court—the same one that decided a year ago that a state law confining marriage to a union between man and woman was discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation—upheld Proposition 8. This proposition bans the state from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The California Supreme Court exercised leadership in discriminatory behavior, modeling it for its citizens, and for other states. This is a dark day for our constitution.
Underlying the passage of the ballot measure and today’s court ruling is, in my opinion, the more apt question of whether ballot measures should even be allowed to enable a religious view to dictate what's acceptable in a state's business behavior.
Is the simple activity of state-issued marriage licensing a religious activity, or a business activity?
If it’s both, then why would it lean toward one religious view or sect (in this case more conservative) versus another? If it’s simply religious, then one might suggest that the state get out of the marriage sacrament entirely. Bottom line, I think it’s a business activity. If that’s the case, then it certainly should not discriminate against anyone.
Once the state's constitution starts limiting licenses based on the views of certain religious groups, and not others, it's not unreasonable to foresee well-funded special interests taking aim at other minority group targets.
Play that movie forward, and you end up with the absurdity of preventing certain groups of people from receiving other state licenses. What's next? No more drivers’ licenses for Native Americans? No more business licenses for the handicapped? No more liquor licenses for recovering alcoholics?
Bottom line, today’s Supreme Court Ruling has California circling the drain of state-sanctioned religious bias and discrimination.
I’m looking forward to the leadership to come: perhaps action by the state legislature, or a new ballot question, one which hits the issue much more on point, such as: "Shall amendments to the State Constitution, past or present, enable the State to ban certain licenses for specific groups of people based on age, race, religion, gender, physical impairment, size, or sexual orientation?"
I think the answer would be, indeed, no.