Calfornia's Supreme Court
rules:
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
"... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.Sully
responds:
As usual, the lazy critics are uninformed. The California court has not over-ruled the legislature: in fact, the legislature has voted for full marriage equality twice already. And the court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?
One other political note: the Republican governor of the state, Arnold, has already come out against the ballot initiative designed to reverse this ruling. And the initiative will not be able to affect the thousands of marriage licenses that will be granted before then. So the legislature, the governor and the court have all now supported equality. So back to the people ... for one last chance to keep the stigma in place.Either way, brickbat congratulates California sodomists. Enjoy these last days before Hurricane Falwell lands and wipes your state off the map.
No comments:
Post a Comment