Two down.

[filenotch]

Forty-eight to go.

The California Supreme Court has overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage...

My favorite line? "...and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender - does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Comments

[kudra2324]

those lines make me so damn happy. here's anthony kennedy in lawrence v. texas: "In explaining the respect the Constitution demands for the autonomy of the person in making these choices, we stated as follows: 'These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.' Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."

[filenotch]

Yes. Long time coming, and not there yet, but one more step in that direction.

[kudra2324]

yes. this particular issue is, for a whole variety of reasons, a particularly important one to me, and one that i hope i'll be able to work on more directly at some point. (which is a funny thing, because i'm fairly unlikely to ever be looking to marry someone of my own sex, and i don't have any particular regard for marriage anyway.) and it's remarkable that we are still where we are on this issue, especially compared to the rest of the "western world," but then again 1967 is both a stupefyingly long time ago for us to still not have moved from allowing interracial marriage to also allowing same-sex marriage, and then again 1967 is a stupefyingly recent time for us to have had to strike down laws against same-sex marriage.

i suspect i'm preaching to the choir, here, though.

[geeklite]

It makes me very happy to live here in CA right now. :D

[filenotch]

Over here in MA, we salute your state for getting a clue.

Hell, I live in a district where I'm actually represented in congress. I get to vote for Barney Frank.

[geeklite]

Go you! I don't get to vote for anyone, because I'm not a citizen, but still I live here in San Francisco, how could I not be celebrating :D

[tesserae_]

Well, the legislature passed same-sex marriage twice on the same grounds, only to have Schwarzeneggar veto it and kick it back to the courts. The precedents they cite are pretty powerful, and the only argument for the dissent is "people don't want it this way", which is most likely not true any longer, and probably was only true in 2000 because voter turnout was poor that year.

Interestingly, Schwarzeneggar is, I think, pleased it's worked out this way, and opposes any efforts to nullify the court's decision. As Gavin Newsome said, "It's about human dignity. It's about civil rights. It's about time."

I couldn't be more pleased to be a Californian today.

[filenotch]

Yep. That's how I felt when the bid to amend the state constitution failed, in large part because several conservative state legislators changed their vote. They cited several factors, but it came down to, "Well, it's been going on for a couple of years now, and, um, nothing seems different. Okay, then."

[kudra2324]

there's a famous story about the court battle over the publication of the pentagon papers - the federal government, obviously, was trying to get an injunction on national security grounds, but publication had been going on for a couple of days before they got to court, and the attorney for the new york times got up and said, essentially, "your honor, the republic still stands," and the court's response was, basically, "good point."

[mav1s7466]

Wow!

[filenotch]

And kudra2324 pointed out they used strict scrutiny.