The M-word does matter, and courts should make that clear.
March 8, 2008
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."
Read more:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment