here comes the brides
God bless California!
From the decision:In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry - and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society - the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.
It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right. (Cf. Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 727; Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 17-19 (Sail’er Inn).)45
There's more information on the case here.
Undoubtedly, fallout from this will wind up on some California ballot come November, and there's nothing to make the crazies crawl out of the woodwork like the Lavender Menace. But I can't help hoping that maybe, just maybe this has even the barest chance of holding its ground.
I may lose queer points for this, but I'm going to say it anyway: I don't like gay marriage as an issue. As a concept, it's all right for them that want it, and I'll probably go about getting one of my own one of these days, but it's not for everyone and it doesn't impact everyone in the queer community; likewise, the institution of straight marriage is such a patriarchal mess that I really don't think trying to emulate it should be the queer community's #1 priority. It's an issue that primarily benefits the 'good' queers, the ones who've paired off in relationships that are 'normal' enough that you can fit them into the 'traditional' model with only a little tweaking. Really, laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, protect LBGT persons from unjust legal action, and prosecute hate crimes accordingly are infinitely more practical and benefit a larger number of people.
But I'm not so much of a grouch about it that I can't be excited about California's decision. Heck, I'm actually tearing up a little. And that, children, is why I make a terrible ideologue.
From the decision:In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry - and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society - the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.
It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right. (Cf. Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 727; Sail’er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 17-19 (Sail’er Inn).)45
There's more information on the case here.
Undoubtedly, fallout from this will wind up on some California ballot come November, and there's nothing to make the crazies crawl out of the woodwork like the Lavender Menace. But I can't help hoping that maybe, just maybe this has even the barest chance of holding its ground.
I may lose queer points for this, but I'm going to say it anyway: I don't like gay marriage as an issue. As a concept, it's all right for them that want it, and I'll probably go about getting one of my own one of these days, but it's not for everyone and it doesn't impact everyone in the queer community; likewise, the institution of straight marriage is such a patriarchal mess that I really don't think trying to emulate it should be the queer community's #1 priority. It's an issue that primarily benefits the 'good' queers, the ones who've paired off in relationships that are 'normal' enough that you can fit them into the 'traditional' model with only a little tweaking. Really, laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, protect LBGT persons from unjust legal action, and prosecute hate crimes accordingly are infinitely more practical and benefit a larger number of people.
But I'm not so much of a grouch about it that I can't be excited about California's decision. Heck, I'm actually tearing up a little. And that, children, is why I make a terrible ideologue.