California Supreme Court Strikes Down Anti-Gay Rights Laws Affirming Heterosexual Marriage: In Other News, Definitions Are Bad...
California's Supreme Court today struck down yet another of California's Initiatively-based Laws, and a related preceding Legislative law. These laws, restricting the definition of "marriage" to apply strictly to monogamous heterosexual (or, "inter-sexual") couples, were judged to be unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional? Yup:
Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban
on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977
one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved
law that passed with 61 percent in 2000...
...
...
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.
One wonders, if one is like me, why the state needed a voter-approved law defining "marriage" in 2000, if there was already a law on the books from 1977. One would wonder, but be a little under-motivated to look into it just now.
In its 4-3 ruling, the ... high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an
individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed
relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise
children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation,"
Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority...
We all must come to understand this idea — must, or we will soon be dismissed as Puritanical (look up the Puritans someday) and intractably dim: There is nothing special about the relationship formed between a man and a woman who make a firm commitment to be faithful to one another for life, and to have children with each other.
Nothing at all. Nothing unique; nothing to be preserved or encouraged.
All loves are the same, if we are to think Progressively. As long as one's love is based in lovely love that is all that matters:
"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. ...
"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall.
"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," [Tim Oviatt] said.
"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," [Tim Oviatt] said.
***
In other news, I note that the California Supreme Court will soon decide on some related cases in the coming weeks, which may strengthen their decision's impact:
(1) In The State of California Vs. Glassman, the Court is expected to rule that all California laws treating "gastro-intestinal tracts" and "reproductive organs" as essentially different in character and function are unconstitutional. In addition to legislation, the Court may extend their decision to apply also to any biological laws discriminating between the two systems. The over-under in Vegas is currently 4-3, as in the decision released today.Stay tuned! It looks like it's going to be a banner year for those on both sides of the "discrimination" argument!
(2) In Willis Vs. Clark, the Court will entertain arguments as to whether the system of Mutation and Natural Selection is unconstitutional owing to "the inevitable foundation of discrimination" underlying the system.
(3) Come June, in Zachary Vs. All, the Court will deliberate over whether or not the definition of "African American" should be enlarged to include any person or persons "originating in the Olduvai Gorge" area of Africa. This could have significant impacts on everything from the next Presidential election to the history of jazz.
(4) The Court looks forward, in Plessy Vs. Greenpeace, to taking up the matter of the treatment of threatened and endangered species in the state. Essentially, the central argument is rumored to be that specialized laws protecting and preserving some kinds of animals and plants are necessarily discriminatory and therefore deny such care to other, non-threatened species. Unconstitutional? You betcha, hope the plaintiffs.
(5) Finally, Chief Justice George notes that "we'll finally get a crack at [those pesky] Separation clauses" and determine if certain or even all laws outlined in all major religions, proscribing licentiousness, drunkenness, selfishness, pride, and other sorts "life-affirming" behaviors and attitudes, are discriminatory in any way against such behaviors, and hence — you guessed it — unconstitutional.
Comments