May 29, 2009  |  By: Chris Johnson  | COMMENTS     

In a decision that disheartened supporters of same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a state constitutional amendment that ended access to marriage for gay couples in the Golden State.

Justices decided that the amendment, known as Proposition 8, would remain part of the state constitution. They also determined that the measure cannot be applied retroactively, though, so the 18,000 gay couples that wed in the state prior to voter approval of the ban still have valid marriages.

In the 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George, the majority determined that Prop 8 “constitutes a permissible constitutional amendment” and denied arguments supporters of same-sex marriage advanced as reasons to invalidate the measure.

“Having determined that none of the constitutional challenges to the adoption of Proposition 8 have merit, we observe that if there is to be a change to the state constitutional rule embodied in that measure, it must ‘find its expression at the ballot box,’” George wrote.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a statement that the court decision “has undermined the central principle that all people are entitled to equal rights and has jeopardized every minority group in California.”

“No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot, and the court should not have permitted such a travesty of justice to stand,” she said.

But Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council said in a statement that justices upheld democracy in their ruling.

“Even this widely recognized liberal court understands that overturning Proposition 8 would represent a repudiation of the state Constitution it is sworn to uphold,” he said.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) said in a statement he would uphold the decision of the court even though he believes “one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage.”

He added that the court “made the right decision” by keeping in place the 18,000 marriages that have already taken place and encouraged those who wanted to respond to the decision “to do so peacefully and lawfully.”

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, told the Blade on Tuesday that “the court got it wrong” in its decision on Prop 8, adding that “now it’s up to all of us to get it right.”

“They made it clear we have to go back to the voters and that’s what we’re prepared to do,” he said.

The ruling contrasts with another decision the court made in May 2008, when justices ruled 4-3 that gay couples had a right to marry under the state constitution. Prop 8, which voters approved in November by 52 percent, overturned that decision.

Chief Justice Ron George, Associate Justice Joyce Kennard and Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar, who ruled in favor of plaintiffs in the marriage case, joined with the three justices who were in the minority last year to uphold Prop 8 in Tuesday’s majority opinion.

The White House had no immediate response to the ruling. When asked to comment Tuesday after the decision was released, press secretary Robert Gibbs gave reporters at the daily briefing a short response.

“I have not talked to the president about it,” he said. “I think the issues involved are ones that you know where the president stands.”

Court rejects Prop 8 arguments

Opponents of Prop 8 had argued that the amendment should be invalidated because, under the California Constitution, the measure should be considered a more substantial “revision” rather than a simpler “amendment,” thus requiring a two-thirds vote from both chambers of the California Legislature for approval.

But the court rejected the argument, citing that the constitution placed no limitation on what could be put up for a vote in the voter-initiated amendment process.

“We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners — but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature,” George wrote.

Justices also rejected an argument advanced by Attorney General Jerry Brown: that Prop 8 should be invalidated because it takes away “inalienable” rights from California residents without compelling justification.

George wrote that Prop 8 “does not have the sweeping constitutional effect suggested by the Attorney General’s argument” and the amendment should only be interpreted “as simply carving out a limited exception to the reach of the constitutional rights of privacy and due process.”

“Same-sex couples retain all of the fundamental substantive components encompassed within the constitutional rights of privacy and due process, with the sole (albeit significant) exception of the right to equal access to the designation ‘marriage,’ ...