California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8; Rules Against Same-Sex Marriage

Well, it could be worse.

The California Supreme Court ruled today that Proposition 8, last November’s ballot initiative amending the California Constitution to forbid same-sex marriage, is legal. It also affirmed that marriages conducted between May 2008 (when the same court ruled that same-sex marriage was constitutional) and November were legal. Supporters of Prop. 8 had hoped for a one-two punch that included invalidation of the 18,000 so-called Rainbow Window marriages.

Prop. 8 opponents rested on the argument that Prop. 8’s stripping of extant rights from a “protected class” of people was such a gross alteration to the state Constitution that it constituted a revision, not an amendment, to the Constitution. Revisions require a completely separate process to be passed.

Does the “fundamental right” of the people to go to the polls and enact law by referendum supersede the “fundamental right” of a protected class to marry? Does the right of the people permit a majority of the electorate to remove rights from a minority? The ruling today suggests that, yes, a majority of the people can remove or limit the rights of a minority group. More on this later.

Let’s be clear: this is not a normal ballot initiative. The ballot measures we voted on last week? Those were standard-issue: permit the legislature to save more money; permit the legislature to redirect money. Prop. 8 was unlike any ballot initiative that California had seen before. It allowed a majority of voters to strip a minority of a right that majority already had. With today’s ruling, a dangerous precedent has been created: the referendum process and the right of the majority to make law through the ballot is officially more important than the rights of the minorities that the majority would seek to take away using the initiative process.

The court’s ruling is 185 pages long. Here’s a summary:

• The scope of the decision is limited to the question of whether or not Proposition 8 was an “amendment” or “revision” of California’s Constitution. The court did not rule on the legal legitimacy of same-sex marriage; that issue was decided last May.
• The marriages that occurred between last May and last November are still valid, since retroactively invalidating a lawfully-performed marriage would require due process and not merely the approval of voters.
• What is at stake here is not the fundamental rights of same-sex couples; the court affirmed that the rights are the same, but under Prop. 8, same-sex couples cannot have the word “marriage.”

That minority had better have a lot of money, because in order to get their rights back, they’ll have to mount a campaign to get another proposition on the ballot amending the Constitution to remove the previous amendment. Fortunately, that’s what they plan to do: Prop. 8 opponents plan to have another initiative on the ballot in 2010, this time repealing the amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Let’s be equally clear what the California Supreme Court is not saying. The court is not suggesting that same-sex marriage itself is inherently unconstitutional; it also is not suggesting that same-sex marriage itself is inherently constitutional. (Interestingly, the May 2008 decision already ruled that the language contained in Prop. 8 is discriminatory under the law; the statute in question contained exactly the same language found in Prop. 8, and back then, when it wasn’t an amendment, it was unconstitutional.) The court has merely adjudicated two issues: does Prop. 8 constitute an amendment, and does Prop. 8 apply retroactively? The majority opinion concluded by noting that, if Prop. 8 opponents are unhappy with today’s ruling, “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.’” The court has certainly not suggested that same-sex marriage can never be the law. In finding that Prop. 8 was an amendment, the court has said that the only proper way to invalidate an amendment is with another amendment; i.e., another ballot measure repealing the Prop. 8 amendment.

Only one judge dissented from the opinion. Judge Moreno expressed concern that a simple majority vote could unilaterally strip a minority group of its rights:

The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities. It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.

Judge Moreno calls the Equal Protection Clause “inherently countermajoritarian,” meaning that its purpose is not to accede to the will of the majority, but rather to ensure that anything the majority does allows for the protection of minority groups. The Clause prevents what John Stuart Mill called “the tyranny of the majority,” one of the dangers inherent in democracy. Under a democratic system, the majority — by its sheer size — is presumed to be correct. As we have seen with Prop. 8, the fact that a majority believes something does not necessarily make that thing true.

There has been some talk of amending the state constitution to alter the amendment process. This would be a good step in the direction of eliminating the back-and-forth that we will see with ballot initiatives for the next few years. Here’s an idea: making a distinction between amendments that due mundane things like alter the budget process and amendments that alter the status of individual liberties.

Breaking News: A very odd couple — former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson (who argued for Bush in 2000’s Bush v. Gore) and David Boies (who argued for Gore in Bush v. Gore) have agreed to join forces and take up a federal court case challenging Prop. 8 under the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection” clause. What else is interesting about this? Any case that adjudicates this issue would necessarily adjudicate both any other state law banning same-sex marriage and the federal ban on same-sex marriage. (The U.S. government currently does not recognize same-sex marriage as “marriage” for federal purposes.)

Federalism and Medical Marijuana: A Match Made in Confusion

Federalism is a funny thing. At its best, federalism provides for states’ individual personalities and needs. At its worst, federalism means “no one really knows who’s in charge.” Federalism led to several “nullification” crises in the 1820s when some Southern states, backed by southerner John C. Calhoun (vice president at the time), believed they had the power to “nullify” acts of Congress. Of course, they didn’t, and the states stewed for forty more years until they had a little fight about it.

But, Federalism is here to stay, mostly because it prevents the concentration of all powers in the hands of the federal government. The phrase “United States of America” should be taken more literally than it is: the Founding Fathers thought that this country would, literally, be a bunch of disparate states united by the federal government. In Article I of the Constitution, they laid out Congress’ specific powers: what it can, and cannot, do. Congress’ powers are limited only to those ennumerated in Article I. In 1791, the amendments within the Bill of Rights were ratified, further limiting the federal government’s power. Of note to us now is the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is important to remember: if there’s a power someone out there can think of, and that power is not specifically granted to Congress, then the state governments or the people themselves have that power. Take liquor control: there’s no federal law governing alcoholic beverages because regulating liquor is not one of Congress’ specifically-granted powers; therefore, that power defaults to the states.

Sure, great history lesson, but this is all so boring. Does any of this have a point?

Let’s begin in 1970, with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act. This marked the beginning of the War on Drugs. The Controlled Substances Act clearly defined what drugs were always illegal, sometimes illegal, and legal. It divides drugs into five categories, or schedules. Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value. Schedule II drugs have a high potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence, but have accepted medical value. And so on down to Schedule V, which are drugs with a low potential for abuse and limited psychological or physical dependence. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I narcotic, meaning it has a high propensity for abuse and no accepted medical value, as far as the U.S. Congress is concerned.

But the U.S. Congress isn’t always correct. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which permitted physicians to legally prescribe marijuana as a treatment and further permitted a patient or a patient’s caregiver to grow marijuana plants for the patient’s medical use. Proposition 215 has been the basis for many a federalist showdown over who has authority in the realm of legal drugs. The U.S. Justice Department has refused to recognize the legitimacy of Prop. 215, and as such, continues to raid medical marijuana dispensaries in California because, hey, federal law always trumps state law (this is the “supremacy clause” of the U.S. Constitution).

The U.S. Supreme Court, while not ruling specifically on the issue of California’s statute, has twice upheld the supremacy of Congress when it comes to drug enforcement. In 2005’s Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court used some curious reasoning and the commerce clause to find that Congress can regulate marijuana cultivation, even if the marijuana never crosses state lines (disclosure: I wrote the above-linked article).

As much as proponents of legal marijuana may not like to hear it, the law is very cut and dry: when federal law and state law are in conflict, federal law always wins. In this case, California law says that marijuana has medical value and should be prescribed legally. Federal law completely disagrees. Federal law wins. This is most likely what the U.S. Supreme Court will find if they take up the case of San Diego County.

San Diego County and San Bernadino County, two counties in southern California, have been trying for the past three years to overturn Prop. 215. They argue that they should not be required to do something under state law which is illegal under federal law. California’s Fourth Circuit Court disagreed, upholding the legality of California’s statute. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. Now, San Diego and San Bernadino County are taking their fight to the top and asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against California.

Which is probably what they will do. As for the Controlled Substances Act itself, marijuana has been shown to have some medical value, but these studies are routinely overlooked by anti-drug advocates who, for some reason, believe that marijuana is the most dangerous drug ever invented. These people are also in charge of our nation’s drug policy. Not only is marijuana not that dangerous (the risk of overdose is zero, for example), but there are many other drugs that are far more dangerous (in the link above to a Rolling Stone article, the author points out that the government ignored the real danger of methamphetamine for years, preferring instead to fight the make-believe scourge of marijuana). The War on Drugs has escalated even into the free speech zone, causing people to be prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act merely for advocating the use of marijuana or for selling devices that could be used to smoke marijuana.

California, though, is not alone. Other states and municipalities have attempted to circumvent the federal ban in other ways. The most popular method is to make arrest and prosecution for marijuana possession a city police department’s lowest enforcement priority — below traffic tickets, below jaywalking. San Francisco currently has such a policy. The city of Denver passed a referendum in 2005 permitting marijuana possession, even though state law still forbids it. When state, federal, and municipal laws conflict, there’s an enforcement problem. It gets even worse when the people doing some of the enforcing fundamentally disagree with the law. And what happens when the law forbids something that many people do, regardless? Should all those people go to jail, or should the law be re-examined? In Ontario, Canada, a 2008 study showed that 14% of adults used marijuana in 2005. That’s a lot of people; are they all criminals beyond the definition of “criminal” as “one who breaks the law”?

Even if potential Surgeon General Dr. Sanjay Gupta doesn’t think marijuana should be legalized (and for good reasons, too: Dr. Gupta acknowledges that smoking anything is bad for your lungs, and some users report anxiety or depression), he recognizes that some studies have shown marijuana to be an effective treatment for nausea or even Alzheimer’s disease. Marijuana is not illegal because it is bad (cigarettes and alcohol are far worse for your health); it is illegal because a minority of people (the same people who brought you alcohol prohibition) seventy years ago convinced Congress that it was immoral and evil, and that taboo has endured.

Federal marijuana policy is very childish and must be changed, but the Supreme Court is not the appropriate place for relief. If the Court takes San Diego’s case, it will undoubtedly mean the end of medical marijuana legislation for the states. No, appropriate relief must come from Congress, which must remove marijuana from its list of Schedule I narcotics (which is also populated by heroin, mescaline, peyote, and LSD; even cocaine has accepted medical uses!). Rep. Barney Frank took a tremendous step last year when he introduced legislation to permit the possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults (disclosure: I wrote the above-linked article). In the meantime, the people who actually do rely on medical marijuana to get through their day (which, it turns out, are AIDS patients who find marijuana much more effective than the anti-nausea medication they must take with their AIDS drug cocktails) will be ill-served by their government.

The Litigation Begins

I was part of an anti-Proposition 8 demonstration this weekend. Not intentionally, though. As my friend and I walked down Market Street in San Francisco (on our way to find me some fashion), we saw a large crowd marching down the street, shouting slogans like “What do we want? (Equal rights!) Went do we want them? (Now!)” and “Gay, straight, black, white, marriage is a civil right!” So we walked along with the crowd, yelling the slogans, not only because it was an interesting way to get to Union Square, but because we agreed with what the crowd was saying. But then, as we approached Powell Street, my friend and I left the crowd and went to Urban Outfitters where I was to find fashion.

At the time, I thought, “This is an interesting diversion.” I was also aware, though, that for many, if not all, of the people in the chanting crowd, these demonstrations are not a diversion. This is their lives they’re fighting for. I can live comfortably in the assurance that I will never need to fight the government for the right to marry someone (if I even choose to marry anyone at all!).

But there are people whose lives have now been relegated to second-class status under the law.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue. It will accept arguments for and against the constitutionality of Proposition 8 until January. At issue is whether or not Proposition 8 is merely an “amendment” or a “revision” of the state constitution. If the former, Prop. 8 stands, and same-sex couples can’t marry. If the latter, Prop. 8 is unconstitutional on its face, and same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land once again, since a 2/3 vote of both the state legislature and the voters is required to pass a constitutional “revision.”

Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that taking away the rights of a minority is so contrary to the spirit of the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution that a simple majority cannot do it. Alexis de Tocqueville, during his sojourn through the United States in the very early years of the Republic, warned that the majority could conceivably strip a minority group of its rights by virtue of nothing more than majority’s size. This tyranny of the majority, he wrote, was a danger inherent in democracy and something that needed to be guarded against.

De Tocqueville would be disappointed to learn that his warning went unheeded.

The California Supeme Court has only twice overturned voter-approved constitutional amendments: in 1948 and again in 1991. In 1978, the Court said that “revision” referred to “substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions.” So, is removing a right of an entire group of people a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution”? That is what the court will be deciding.

Preliminary indications are not good. Last week, the court voted 6-1 merely to hear the challenge to Prop. 8’s constitutionality. The lone dissenter was Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of four judges who sided with the majority in the May case that legalized same-sex marriage. Her vote will undoubtedly be crucial, but since she doesn’t think that the petitioners even have the ability to file their case before the court, it’s unlikely she would find in favor of the Prop. 8 opponents.

What’s next for Prop. 8? Opponents could place an initiative on the ballot to repeal the amendment. It’s up in the air as to whether or not that would pass. The Mormons, energized by their win this time, could certainly muster up enough money to defeat a repeal amendment.

Shame on Californians who voted for this. They now have the dubious honor of being the first people to amend a constitution so as to take away extant rights.