Legal Mumbo Jumbo

Ok, I'm no attorney, however, I thought I would share some ideas on the legal aspects of the recent passing of gay marriage in California. According to Yoshino (2008) there is a legal difference in the way the two states were able to legalize gay marriage. The state of Massachusetts used a "rational basis" where California used the "strict scrutiny". To many, and including myself, this is legal mumbo jumbo, hence my title to this blog. The difference in these two passages is that, unlike the "rational basis", the "strict scrutiny" results in invalidation of state policies. Hmmm, what does that mean? Yoshino (2008) tells us that basically "gays can now challenge any California state policy that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation." WOW! I have to say this is HUGE!

As usual there is a rush to get a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage for California's November 2008 ballot. This is very discouraging, however I do have more hope than in the past. I have sad memories of doing code calls to homes back in 2000 in San Diego, fighting proposition 22, which ended up passing by 61.4%. (In statistics that would be considered a moderate relationship to strength of correlation of those that oppose gay marriage. ) In 2000 I had held the voting booth in my garage for the second time. It was a hard days work but well worth it when I had children come and I would let them vote for Lincoln or Washington, I even let the neighbor's cat vote. I secretly had a "no on prop 22" hidden behind my closet door. Around that time the North County Gay and Lesbian center I did volunteer work at was having financial difficulties and was talking about closing down. The mood was gloom. That is how I left sunny San Diego to come to sunny Saipan.

Island Dyke

Reference:

Yoshino, Kenji (2008). Magisterial Conviction: Why the California Supreme Court did more than Leagalize Gay Marriage. Slate.com. Retrieved on May 21, 2008, from http://www.slate.com/id/2191530/