Please contribute to my "escape California" fund.
Why? Because of this.
The court held that people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice and struck down marriage laws limiting matrimony to opposite-sex couples as a violation of the state constitution's equal protection guarantees.Back in 2000, California voters decided via Proposition 22 that the word 'marriage' applied only to legal unions between one man and one woman. The measure passed by 61%."One of the core elements embodied in the state constitutional right to marry is the right of an individual and a couple to have their own official family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the family relationships of other couples," wrote Chief Justice Ronald M. George, joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
State laws that have limited gay unions to domestic partnerships "impinge upon the fundamental interests of same-sex couples," George wrote.
And it most certainly isn't the first time that a California law has been "judicially mandated." I'm seeing a pattern.
This isn't about same-sex marriage or about "discrimination" or about "equal protection," not really. It's about tyranny. Because whether you or I think that same-sex marriage is okay or not, no one's life, liberty or property is harmed or hindered by the state if the voters decide not to label as 'marriage' a legal union between two men or two women.
In contrast, life, liberty and property are very much in peril when a judicial body presumes to overrule the will of the people.
Here’s a Bear Flag League Roundup while I simmer. Some of these folks are lawyers and there are at least three to whom the subject at hand might apply.
While I have no problems with the result of this decision as a matter of social policy, it remains problematic in terms of the judicial activism debate. In addition to the dissenting opinions, you might want to pay particular attention to footnote # 52 in the majority’s decision (starting on pg. 79 of the PDF document) which underscores the problem. Ironically, the majority doesn’t seem to grasp the obvious contradictions and tensions in their reasoning that footnote 52 presents. Merely citing past court decisions is not a valid substitute for reasoning in this instance, nor is it adequate to explain the blatant double standards in social policy (beyond the personal whims and political preferences of the Justices).Tammy Bruce
When Robert Mugabe nullifies an election in Zimbabwe, we cry out in pious indignation. But when it happens here, our tyrants are toasted as enlightened liberators.Boi from Troi
This summer, gays and lesbians will be coming to California to gain legal recognition of their relationships just as they did on Valentine’s weekend 2004 when San Francisco issued same-sex marriage licenses. And like that romantic weekend get-away, they had better make plans fast.The Foothill Cities Blog
Daniel Blatt (and here)
I disagree with this ruling because I believe the decisions the Court made better belong with the legislature and/or the people.Holy Coast
Had the voters been in favor of gay marriage by 61%, I wouldn't have liked it but would have accepted it because that was the will of the voters. If I couldn't live with that decision, I could move to a state that hadn't gone so far down the liberal craphole. However, the voters of California overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage, but because that decision was politically incorrect, the left feels they have a right to use only 4 judges to impose something on Californians that they clearly did not want.Infinite Monkeys
Come November, there will likely be a proposition on the ballot to insert into the California Constitution the legal definition of "marriage" as between only a man and a woman. So maybe all this will be moot by 2009 -- unless, of course, the court doubles down by later declaring even amendments to the state constitution unconstitutional. From this absurd court? I expect it.Lex Communis
First, why not polygamy? Why is "two" a "magic number"? Could it be because we have two arms? Could it be because we have two eyes?Little Miss AttilaOr could it be because there are two sexes, and now that the idea that the complementarity of the different genders is now considered outmoded and irrelevant, why should "two" be a limitation any more than the idea that a "man" and a "woman" constitute a married couple?
Apparently four out of seven California supreme court justices drive a Fiat.Red County
The central question was whether the representative nature of the California state government, including its initiative provisions, would be upheld. They were not. The California Supreme Court asserted its ultimate power today in a way that is shameful and deeply destructive of the ability of a free people to govern themselves.SoCal Pundit
