One more step along the path

[hrj]

Yay for the California State Supreme Court.

Still working on the whole finding-the-woman-of-my-dreams side of the equation.

Comments

[wulfsdottir.livejournal.com]

Here's hoping it sticks this time. This "civil union" nonsense is just "separate but equal" in a different wrapper, and it's past time to be shut of it.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

And that was, to some extent, at the heart of the ruling -- equating it to "separate but equal". Another interesting thing was that they explicitly based the ruling on the unacceptability of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation (rather than attacking it sideways as "gender discrimination"). They state outright that sexual orientation is a "suspect classification" for which the legal test is "strict scrutiny" rather than "rational basis". Curiously enough, however, the core element of the case isn't about the legal/administrative difference between opposite-sex marriage and same-sex domestic partnership -- it's about the legality of labeling the two institutions by different names and not allowing the word "marriage" to be used for the same-sex version. In other words, the court concludes that the legal right to use the word "marriage" is, itself, a critical constitutional right. It's a lovely little piece of writing (http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_9269123), that decision.

[scotica.livejournal.com]

As I read it, the court does *not* conclude that the legal right to use the word "marriage" is, itself, a critical constitutional right -- in fact it explains that it doesn't have to decide that at all in this case: "We need not decide in this case whether the name 'marriage' is invariably a core element of the state constitutional right to marry..."

Rather, what the court ruled was that the legal right to use _the same word as everybody else_ (whatever that word may be) is, itself, a critical constitutional right. So if California uses "marriage" for opposite-sex couples, it must use "marriage" for same-sex couples. But this ruling, at least, would not prevent the state from choosing to use "civil union" instead of "marriage" -- as long as it used "civil union" (and not "marriage") for _everyone_, not just the same-sex couples.

And, having read the legalese (thanks for the link!), I have to agree that it is a lovely little piece of writing, and a lovely, well thought out ruling.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the actual nature of the decision isn't quite the same as how it's being talked about -- I didn't really have time to post nuances on my lunch hour. To some extent, this decision was only about what legally-recognized-two-party-relationships are called officially, not about the existence of those relationships and who can enter into them. In one sense, the essence of the decision is, "Yes, the use of the specific word 'marriage' is important."