| Richard Kramer |
Article Index for Richard |
Website Links For Richard |
Information AboutRichard Kramer |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT RICHARD KRAMER | |
| 1947 births | |
| kramer, richard | |
| california state court judges | |
| living people | |
|
GAY MARRIAGE CASE AND RESPONSE Kramer made headlines [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4349201.stm in March 2005 when he struck down Proposition 22 , a California Ballot Initiative defining Marriage as between a man and a woman on the grounds that it denies the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice." In his decision, he pointed out the "obvious natural and social reality that one does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married” and that " California 's enactment of Right s for same-sex couples belies any argument that the State would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage," concluding that "there is no Rational State Interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well." According to a '', a finding that is enough to overturn virtually any California law under the state's strict constitutional standard. The law makes "the gender of the intended spouse ... the sole determining factor" of the legality of a marriage, Kramer said; he said claims by the law's defenders that the law treats men and women equally were no more valid than earlier claims that anti-interracial marriage laws treated whites and blacks equally." The decision will have no immediate effect during the appeals process. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the status quo of Domestic Partnership rights, but has said that he will abide by the state Supreme Court 's decision and not push any Constitutional Amendment to override the courts. Kramer, in the words of a ''. "There is no plausible argument that any provision of the state Constitution was originally understood to require Same-sex Marriage ," argues the Editorial . Andrew Sullivan concedes that the decision was judicial activism, with which he is somewhat uncomfortable. Nevertheless, he applauded the decision in his Blog , noting: :"when state constitutions insist upon it, you have to have a much stronger argument to keep a minority disenfranchised than the current anti-marriage forces have been able to marshall. Tradition? So was the ban on Inter-racial Marriage . Procreation? Non-procreative straight couples can get civil licenses. The potential collapse of civilization? Impossible to prove or even argue convincingly. Once you have accepted that there is no moral difference between Homosexuality and Heterosexuality , the arguments against same-sex marriage collapse. And since the only coherent moral difference is the likelihood of non-procreative sex, and that is now the norm in traditional heterosexual civil marriage, there is no moral case against allowing gay couples to have civil marriage. The rest is fear and prejudice and Religious conviction. None should have a place as a legal argument in the courts." Sullivan also noted: "Kramer is not a radical. He's a Catholic Republican appointed by a former Republican governor." Finally, Sullivan counters the argument that the decision undermines all marriage law thus: :"No one is using any of these actual, not-always-present aspects of civil marriage to deny anyone's right to marry. No one, so far as I know, is saying that we should bar couples from civil marriages because they are not in love or not cohabiting or any other criterion. But they are saying that couples {Link without Title} do not or cannot procreate should be barred from marriage - on those grounds alone. All Kramer is saying is that current marriage laws have no such exception, and that using that exception to exclude one group of non-procreative couples (the Gay ones) rather than another non-procreative group (the straight ones) makes no logical sense. Especially when many Lesbian (and some gay ones) marriages have biological children, and some straight ones have adopted kids." SEE ALSO |
|
|