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

[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."