Frabjous day!

[wealhtheow]

GAY MARRIAGE LEGALIZED IN CALIFORNIA.This is a fundamental right: everyone gets to decide how to form a family with the people they love. Equal protection demands that either everybody gets marriage, or nobody does, and either everybody gets to call their union "marriage," or nobody does - and the Court, quite rightly, rules in favor of Everybody

Comments

[bifrosty2k]

ZOMG THE GAY IS OKAY!

However, I am suprised at by how slim of a margin that it passed.
I figured our ultraliberal justices would've let it sail past.

[wealhtheow]

Let's see. There were no justices who just dissented; all three who didn't join the majority opinion both concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Baxter (joined by Chin) and Justice Corrigan both say in their opinions that they think that gay unions should be called marriage, and they agree with much of what the majority has to say, but they dissent on separation of powers grounds. The people have spoken (no marriage for teh gayz, but okay, domestic partnerships are fine), and their will should be upheld. The court's overstepping its bounds by doing an end-run around the populace and the legislature, and it should be left to the fullness of time for gay marriage come about through the normal democratic channels of legislation.

So the ultraliberal justices are all quite careful to point out they're ultraliberal and believe in gay marriage. But they're such creeping socialists that they think THE PEOPLE should be the ones to decide, not the Court.

[kazzman]

I got the impression that Baxter was being a bit disingenuous. The "concurrence" aspect was mainly that gay marriage was illegal under state law.

As for leaving it to majoritarian processes, well, there wouldn't be much need for the Equal Protection Clause if we could always rely on those. Of course I favor majoritarian processes as a general rule, but there are limits to how far a majority may go in discriminating against minority classes. I'm sure you agree with all of this.

[wealhtheow]

Indeed I do.

[kazzman]

I love that the only difference between this post and one I would expect from the Concerned Women for America is the lower case "g" in "god."

It's a great day!

[wealhtheow]

Right down to the crying!

*tries to resist the urge to say "Clearly this is more evidence that Washington should become more like California"*

*fails*

[kazzman]

Gah! With all these edits my initial comments makes no sense!

[wealhtheow]

I take all the blame for that fact!

[wealhtheow]

"In the present case, it is readily apparent that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples clearly is more consistent with the probable legislative intent than withholding that designation [...]. In view of the lengthy history of the use of the term 'marriage' to describe the family relationship here at issue, [...] there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples [...] is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference."

[wealhtheow]

I rarely say this, but go California!

[thewronghands]

[dances!]

[anonymous]

now we just have to hope the constitutional amendment banning it again doesn't pass in november...

[lilamp]

err, that was me, dunno why i got logged out.

[wealhtheow]

I'm really, really curious about what happens if the amendment passes. Can you *pass* a constitutional amendment that affects one issue and one portion of the population, so as to undermine the really, really fundamental equal protection and privacy protections that pre-existed in the constitution?? Nobody has an answer for me on this point yet! I will find a con law prof.

Note that California voters added the privacy clause to the state constitution, on which the Marriage Cases decision relies in part in its finding that Prop 22's changes to the law were unconstitutional. And the voters passed Prop 22 also... the mind boggles!

[lilamp]

the proposition system in california is what boggles the mind.