The board on gay marriage - COLD COPY - Los Angeles Times

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, rebuking past voter-approved efforts that sought to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, like the recent Proposition 22. As opponents prepare to fight for a new, stronger ballot initiative--one that would supersede the court's decision and amend the state constitution--the editorial board emphasizes today its support for the ruling.

And in fact, since 2000, when Proposition 22 passed, the board has consistently advocated gay marriage rights for all, while exploring the checks-and-balances of voter drives, legislative bills, gubernatorial vetoes, and court decisions and which is the ideal route for social change.

On Feb. 25, 2000, the board urged a no vote on Proposition 22:

Brief and deceptively simple, this proposal changes nothing, for California law already limits marriage to a man and a woman.
As a ballot measure, however, Proposition 22 increases intolerance and deepens fissures within our society. In this context, the proposal enshrines in law a social ostracism of gays and lesbians. And it heightens the hostility toward those whose religious beliefs have led them to support the measure…. California, as the most diverse state in the nation--indeed on Earth--must resist that which could divide us based on who we are.

On March 9, 2000, after the vote, The Times called the initiative process a "flawed" one that "results in bad lawmaking." As for why Proposition 22 passed? The board suggested it was money and a high conservative turnout due to a fierce Bush-McCain primary:

Massive infusions of money, mostly to buy television ads, helped insurance companies and Indian tribes pass measures they sponsored. Conservatives boosted Proposition 22, the initiative to ban recognition of gay marriage in California, and probably contributed to the narrow defeat of Proposition 26, a proposal to lower the passing vote for local school bonds from two-thirds to a simple majority….
Uncertainty is part of electoral politics. Planners cannot predict when unconnected events, such as this year's surprisingly bitter Bush-McCain battle, might affect the turnout. The best insurance is simply to raise and spend as much money as possible. This is not the grass-roots democracy intended by the initiative's populist authors a century ago. It is, alas, how the business of politics is done in California today.

The following month, the board discussed a Supreme Court decision that let the Boy Scouts exclude openly gay Scoutmasters:

[The decision] comes at an interesting moment in a meandering national journey toward social tolerance of homosexuals….
By upholding the Scouts' right to define homosexual conduct as "not morally straight," the court is implicitly endorsing the view that homosexuality is inherently inconsistent with the values and pledges the Scouts teach young boys. Both the court and the Boy Scouts are engaging in narrow, tortured logic and ultimately are being disingenuous by suggesting the case was about homosexual conduct. It was not.

In February 2004, the board had only this to say about San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's allowing marriage licenses to be granted to gay couples:

Practically speaking, it's hard to say how much Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples will advance the rights of gays and lesbians. But clearly those who claim that it signals the end of civilization need to get their outrage odometers adjusted.

On Sept. 8, 2005, the board criticized Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for using Proposition 22 as reason to veto a legislative bill expanding marriage rights, and presaged yesterday's court decision:

Californians can take pride in the fact that their Legislature is the first in the nation to pass a law expanding the right to marry to gay couples. It's in keeping with the state's progressive heritage, and the American West's respect for individual freedom, to take government out of the business of passing judgment on the lifestyle choices of its citizens. If the state of California, as opposed to a church, is going to award licenses to couples who make a commitment to each other, it should do so on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Alas, Californians' pride will be fleeting because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday afternoon that he will veto the bill…. Schwarzenegger has also indicated that this is an issue best left to voters and the courts, not mere lawmakers. Does he not believe in the American system of representative democracy?...
And once the highest court does order the state to stop discriminating, it will be harder for critics to complain about activist judges getting ahead of the political process. In this case, judges will be reaffirming the Legislature's intent.

On Sept. 25 of that year, one member of the board, Karin Klein, dissented with the above editorial, but still hoped for a judgment like the one that came yesterday:

I say this as someone who believes that gay marriage should be legal -- and that it almost certainly will be eventually. Polls show a strong majority of younger voters think it should be lawful; if the courts don't make it legal, demographic change will make it acceptable.
I also believe the California Supreme Court should nullify Proposition 22 because it unfairly limits the rights of gays and lesbians. But until it does, it must be respected.
Simply ignoring a clearly worded ballot proposition passed by a majority of Californians five years ago is no way to make law.

The board urged the state Supreme Court to approve same-sex marriage when it came before the court last year, noting the argument over the word "marriage":

Whether committed same-sex couples will be relieved of second-class status now depends on the state Supreme Court. And as Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer's ruling notes, the state Constitution trumps any ballot question and entitles same-sex couples to what he called "the last step in the equation: the right to marriage itself."
In other states, including Massachusetts, courts have focused on the "incidents" of marriage -- such as joint ownership of property, shared custody and survivors' benefits. Kramer, however, placed the emphasis where it should be: on the word "marriage."

And on March 8 of this year, the board once again asked the court to emphasize that a civil union isn't a marriage:

Ideally, full marriage rights for same-sex couples would come about through the political process…. It may be, as Justice Carol Corrigan suggested at this week's arguments, that evolving public attitudes will eventually lead to same-sex marriage--M-word and all--without intervention by the judiciary. As we have said before, we don't think same-sex couples should have to wait. In 1948, the court was accused of thwarting the will of the people when it struck down the ban on interracial marriage; it would face similar condemnation if it ruled that "equal protection of the laws" requires the same treatment for heterosexual and same-sex couples. But, as in 1948, the result would be the just one.