An interesting observation by legal scholar Eugene Volokh -- that the 9th Circuit's decision validates yet another "slippery slope" argument used in the past by pro-marriage advocates:
...The Ninth Circuit did not decide that all opposite-sex-only marriage recognition rules are unconstitutional. Rather, it concluded that when a state has already recognized same-sex civil unions that are functionally equivalent or nearly equivalent to marriage, denying the symbolic recognition provided by the label “marriage” is no longer rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The court did not decide whether the general constitutional right to marry that applies to same-sex couples, or whether opposite-sex-only recognition rules are generally unconstitutional on the grounds that discrimination based on sexual orientation requires “strict scrutiny” or “intermediate scrutiny” and fails that scrutiny. It only applied the rational basis test, and held that the regime of civil unions but not same-sex marriage lacks a rational basis.
Note that, if the decision is upheld, this means that the arguments that civil unions are a “slippery slope” to same-sex marriage were absolutely right: The recognition of civil unions changed the legal landscape in a way that made it more likely for courts to also conclude that same-sex marriage must be recognized, too.
Perhaps the next time pro-marriage advocates point out a slippery slope, it will be taken more seriously.
18 Comments
No, they decided that when a state has made legal recognition of same-sex marriage a reality, and then steps back from that to offer up "separate but equal" civil unions in its stead, that it is violated due process and equal protection guaranteed by the U.S. constitution.
The court did NOT rule on the merits of the case that civil unions constitute an unfair substitution UNLESS the state has already provided marriage and is now replacing it with civil unions.
That said, civil unions are unconstitutional. But the federal courts haven't confirmed that yet.
California does not have civil unions, but now any compromise seems to require redefining marriage. There is no plausible compromise or stopping point on the slippery slope.
And is this not a one-way ratchet that the people are excluded from interfering with? If the courts invent a new right or redefine a legal term, and even if the people reject it (as in California) or the judges (as in Iowa), the newly invented right or newly minted definition now cannot be questioned. This is not just anti-democratic, it is Orwellian. How can we still call ourselves a democracy under this legal theory?
etu Illinois? So goes their civil unions.. Illinois just introduced a bill titled the "Marriage Fairness Act" The bill is a result of a ruling by the the 9th Circuit, which said that California’s denial of marriage in favor of domestic partnerships for same sex couples violated the U.S. Constitution.
The case for amending the constitution to prohibit the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause as protecting same-sex sexual relationships grows stronger with every court ruling that so abuses its language.
The minimum necessary step is the "Lite" Federal Marriage Amendment,without which more states than needed to ratify it have laws that would be struck down without their consent:
Neither this Constitution,nor the constitution of any State,shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
That would actually leave voluntarily adopted SSM laws intact,but abolish the contention that they are an entitlement of a supposed class of persons defined by desiring them.
Civil unions are a mistake on my levels.
Whoops--autocorrect--"on many levels."
I've been pointing out that civil unions, if they are assigned the same rights and responsibilities as civil marriage (as in Hawaii), is just marriage at the State level but under a different name. Those who oppose same-sex civil marriage should stick to logic and not let sympathy get the best of them, and oppose civil unions for same-sex friendships. This post shows (the slippery slope concept) that civil unions for same-sex partnerships are now considered (in California's 9th Circuit Appeals Court) grounds for same-sex civil marriage by decree.
An answer to the pervasive question about same-sex civil marriage is that (after Texas v. Lawrence) homosexuality is a particular religion.
The other answer is that our governments define marriage benefits and responsibilities purely on the basis of engendering children, and rearing children.
In no instance should government provide welfare for single moms, or single dads, except to help them train for a job, or find an official partner. And government should provide a limited benefit for those couples who do not engender children (a 9 month sacrifice), but adopt one into the partnership. Same-sex Partnerships, like a grandma and an aunt taking care of a child, should be supported with benefits and responsibilities by the State and Federal government, but more benefits for the opposite-sex marriages per child, less benefits for single moms per child and decreasing with each additional child, and less benefits for mere friendships that adopt a child. Parental rights should be for genetic descendants, and if that fails, by a strict adoption process for registered partnerships, where both partners adopt the child. In my opinion, it is more logical to associate State or Federal benefits with child rearing, and not the so-called committed, long-term partnership brain-wash.
It is not about what we call it. The civil matter is purely about benefits and responsibilities. It is also not about societal recognition, because society is not FORCED to recognize anyone's partnership.
Say what you will about civil unions, but THE PEOPLE support them. Just take Washington state, for example, where the people affirm by vote the civil union/domestic partnership law. And polls show huge support for them.
"The other answer is that our governments define marriage benefits and responsibilities purely on the basis of engendering children, and rearing children."
Not one marriage benefit or responsibility comes from having children. For it to be true, there would have to be a difference between the marriage benefits or responsibilities between a married with children, and a married couple without children. There aren't. Except for maybe the fact the if a married woman gives birth, her husband gets to assume it's his child. But that's a miniscule consideration, considering all the other marriage rights and benefits.
Homosexuality is a religion. Interesting.
QueerNE,certainly many people treat homosexual orientation as conferring a sacrosanct right to engage in homosexual activity,and demand that this be an "article of faith" enforced on unbelievers.
This makes a great argument to reject civil unions. It also validates the reasoning of those before who were opposed to civil unions that they would use this to impose SSM on us.
This is exactly what happened in CT. The state legislature approved civil unions. In the same legislative act the state defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So what did the homosexual activists do after they got civil unions in CT? They crybabied their case down to the CT Supreme Court and used civil unions as the lawyer trick to get the CT court to impose SSM on the entire state.
Of course the people of the state and the elected representatives were bypassed. The citizens had no say and there is no citizen ballot question referendum for the people to express their view. So remember that when they get civil unions. They are headed next to the court house.
Or consider Maine. When they got the human rights regarding homosexuality passed they promised it would have nothing to do with marriage. In just five years they used that law to get the state to impose SSM on the citizens.
People were willing to support civil unions as a compromise, but now we see that agreeing to a compromise is used to force the destruction of the compromise.
Since traditional marriage is framed as a hateful and bigoted institution, no compromise will be tolerated by those that so frame the issue.
I agree, Publius. I used to wholeheartedly favor civil unions, but now I do not. This recent decision is not my only reason for opposing. I don't think it makes sense to apply marriage laws to same-sex couples under another name.
Listen to yourselves, you were never okay with any partnership rights and now you're claiming this is what broke the camel's back.
No, what made you oppose partnership rights was the existence of partnership rights.
If this is a signal you will fight Washington's voter approved R-71 I'm appalled.
I'd agree to reciprocal beneficiaries.
You guys are really between a rock and a hard place.
On one hand civil unions lead to same gender marriages, but on the other hand if you oppose civil unions, people will view you as extremists and are more likely to support same gender marriage equality, without the civil union compromise.
What to do, what to do.