John Culhane previews tomorrow's prop 8 decision:
It will be interesting to see how the court handles the question of domestic partnership the marriage equivalent without the name or the social approbation that remains in effect in California after Prop 8. In their decision in In Re Marriage Cases, the justices weren’t gulled by the argument that domestic partnership was “just as good” as marriage. Although there are many problems with the status, the court leveled the most telling criticism at it: If it’s just the same thing, why go to the trouble to create it?
The whole idea is to fence same-sex couples out, thereby purposefully creating a class of second-class citizens. In one sense (not a practical one), this is even worse than a complete denial of marriage benefits to same-sex couples, which at least have been supported with legal and social arguments (however weak).
Yet during the oral argument in March...at least one Justice (Kennard) seemed to suggest that Prop 8 might be less objectionable because it doesn’t remove the rights of marriage, “just” the title. Will the court stand on that point? If so, what was all the shouting about last year?
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.