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

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

Though it remains to be seen whether the one step forward will be followed by two steps back in November. Regressive amendments have done distressingly well to date.

[scotica.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, a legal commentator on TV (not sure if she was a lawyer, professor, and/or judge) suggested that even if such an amendment should be passed, it would still run afoul of this ruling. I think her opinion was based on this part of the ruling:

"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process."

So now I'm curious to hear other opinions about this bit.

[cryptocosm.livejournal.com]

Note that this specifies the statutory initiative process, i.e., ordinary law like Prop. 22 of late and unlamented memory. Constitutional amendments are different - in theory, anything in the constitution can be revoked by amendment. It's a technicality, sure, but lawyers love technicalities.

Depending on how the amendment is worded (and, of course, whether it passes) it could make for interesting results, though. If the constitution is amended merely to say that same-sex couples can't be 'married', then today's decision could be interpreted to require under equal protection that no one be 'married' under state law. Bizarre - but possible. Since the amendment has already been submitted, it can't have been written to anticipate today's decision.

Apart from the marriage issue, however, I find it interesting to note the size of the sledgehammer taken to the mosquito. Sexual orientation as a 'suspect characteristic'? Strict scrutiny? That's powerful stuff, and it's not limited to the case at hand. It's precedent now.

Yes, the rabid homophobes have good reason to be frothing today . . .