Instititutional Repository of the University of PittsburghOver at Feminist Law Professors, Professor Anthony Infanti offered his breakdown of the California Supreme Court’s ruling last week that the California Constitution requires that the law permit marriage for same-sex couples:
This decision is already under threat, because opponents of same-sex marriage weeks ago submitted more than 1 million signatures in support of an effort to place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot in California this fall. Should that measure make it onto the ballot and be approved by the voters, the court’s decision today would be overturned and the victory fleeting. Interestingly, though, the ballot measure makes no mention of retroactive application, possibly setting the stage for another battle in the courts—this time over the status of those who marry between now and November. One bright spot, however, is that the ballot measure should not affect the California Supreme Court’s labeling of sexual orientation as a suspect classification and its resulting application of strict scrutiny to sexual orientation-based classifications. This alone is a quite important aspect of the decision and should survive the referendum that might take place this fall.
Link
Professor Infanti was also quoted by The Recorder, San Francisco’s daily legal newspaper, regarding the opinion.
