Not always, but sometimes, I am proud to live in California.
As I understand it, this ruling specifically overrules California legislation excluding same-sex couples from eligibility for marriage licenses, claiming marriage and the legal creation of a family is a [California] constitutional right. So, any same-sex couple can be married by the state, while religious groups are free to deny marriage for dogmatic reasons. Kevin and others, feel free to weigh in a correct me if I've got some of this wrong.
It's important to point out that of the seven judges who made this ruling (with a split of 4-3), six were appointed by Republican governors.
Sometimes, a good idea is just a good idea.
While this is a big step, it isn't big enough; not only does this just apply to California, and not the nation, but even statewide there is a disparity between the rights of heterosexual and homosexual couples.
But every step forward is a good thing, and cause to be glad.
Just for fun, some responses:
Governor Schwarzenegger's response:
I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.
President Bush's response (via Press Secretary Dana Perino):
President Bush has always believed marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. Today's decision by the California Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment is the best way for the people to decide what marriage means.
The LA Times has a collection of extracts from numerous figures.
Salon.com takes a look at the judicial press release, plus a release from conservative activist group "Concerned Women for America."
Lastly, the presidential hopefuls for this coming election.
3 comments:
this has nothing to do with the ban on gay marriage being overturned (which is definitely a step in the right direction), so my apologies upfront.
i have to ask, when are you going to post something on the new sony oled tv's? i've only watched some youtube videos and read about them (great article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2191493/), but its a freakin' piece of glass, about three credit cards thick!! its a piece of glass filled with an organic compound! anyway, i want your take
The first thing my dad said to me about this decision was, "the California Supreme Court is not a liberal court...there couldn't be more than 3 liberals on it." This is a great step in the right direction even if the national media labels it as "liberal California"--the fact of the matter is that people are coming to realize that there is no legal way to provide male-female couples with benefits while restricting same sex couples from those same benefits. It is just plain unconstitutional. As the states continue to reject gay marriage bans, the Supreme Court will be open to rejecting it as well.
I'm also proud of California. =) I hadn't thought yet of the potential impact the decision may have on future Supreme Court decisions. (Perhaps I was falling into the media portrayal of the decision as a result of the liberal Californians?) It's true though, that the Supreme Court (whether it wants to admit it or not) follows national trends on controversial issues. This is an excellent connection to the commencement speech we heard today from Justice Breyer about the rule of law - even the controversial decisions of the Supreme Court are followed by the rest of the country, likely as a result of the fact that the Court works to ensure its decisions are acceptable to a majority of the country. It raises interesting questions on the Supreme Court as one of three branches of government, rather than truly independent.
Regardless, though, this is a terrific decision, and I'm glad that the Governor isn't supporting a constitutional amendment. I hope he has the political power to prevent any move toward an amendment from gaining too much ground.
Post a Comment