California Supreme Court Declares, "Yes to Marriage Equality!"

Today the State's supreme court decided the issue of who can get married in California. The answer is, everyone. Gay or straight, marriage is a right and there is no second-class status in their state.

I'm a proud resident of Massachusetts and I will never forget the day the court ruled in favor of the Goodridge Plaintiffs. I raised my fists up to the sky and felt powerful in a way that I had never felt before. I was equal. Discriminating against my right to marriage was unconstitutional. It was not acceptable in the eyes of the law.

As a lesbian, I have never felt protected by the law. When we went through the process of second parent adoption in Massachusetts for our three boys, each time I had a lump in my throat. The laws were created to keep people like me away.

No more.

California has taken the next step in the fight for equality. Without question. There are many more to take before LGBT people are seen as equals in the law, equals in this country on both state and federal levels.

And there will be backlash, threats of the end of the world. Funny thing is, we're still all alive and breathing in Massachusetts. Heterosexuals are still getting married -- and divorced -- at the same rate as always. The biggest difference is a lot of kids, like mine, have their families protected.

Rights guaranteed.

Because it's not about "gay marriage." It's about equal access to a legal institution that has been created to ensure committed couples are protected. It ensures the children of that couple are protected under the law. There have been thousands of legal precedents based on the institution of marriage that simply cannot be replicated by a new term, or new legal definition.

And no one is going to force any religious institution to embrace is because in our country, we have a separation of church and state. I know it doesn't seem like we do, but in fact, that is required by our constitution.

Congratulations, California. Welcome to the increasing number of states that refuse to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

It feels good, doesn't it?

Comments

[JosephHill]

Rant (concluded)


GOTCHA! Let's play Gotcha!. It works every time. It keeps the public entertained, and it convinces them that there really are 'differences' between the two candidates. By now, we all know that Barack Hussein Obama is a closet Muslim, an elitist, a bad bowler...and who knows what else? We recently learned that Michelle Obama is now (finally!) proud of her country. We know (as if we didn't already know) that Bill Clinton has a very bad temper.....although nowhere near as dangerous as John McCain's. At least they both wear flag pins on their lapels! As noted earlier, Hillary just loves to hang out with the boys at the neighborhood bar...matching them shot-for-shot of cheap whiskey.

Our elections have become nothing more than diversions...entertainment; but they do provide us with the illusion that we are participants in something almost sacred--electing those who will preserve, protect, and defend our Freedom and our Homeland and our superiority/exceptionalism among the nations of this earth. It is a sobering duty....and we should always strive to cast our votes for the WINNER.

[JosephHill]

Rant (continued)

The only way to combat a candidate whose views agree with those of a majority of polled voters, is to diminish that candidate by deriding him as being "out of the mainstream." Then, to prove how far out of the mainstream that candidate is, we point to the fact that he's not invited to the serious televised debates. How much more irrelevant can anyone be than to be ignored by the mainstream media...when he is supposed to be running for the highest elective office in the nation. Obviously he's got nothing to say worthy of serious attention; otherwise, we'd see and hear him just as much as the 2 Republicrat candidates.

As a result of limiting presidential debates to only two candidates...both of whom will claim to be "strong on defense", "tough on law enforcement", devoted to God (The One TRUE God, of course), proud of our nation's flag, and grateful to the brave young Americans who have unselfishly put themselves in harm's way (12,000 miles from their Homeland) just so we can be free. Since they can't draw very many distinctions between their shared 'World View', they'd better find some other way to trick people into thinking Our Democracy is thriving and The Public being "informed".

[BrighterStar]

The only way you can read the constitution of California to mean this is to ignore the meaning and substitute what you want it to say. This decision has not basis in law and is totally illegitimate. California will not be a democracy as long as these judges remain on the bench. Those on the left do not care about democracy as long as they get their way. Quite sad really.

[bgregs]

So what about those of us who look at the Constitutions of the Federal and State gov'ts and see where it says that all men have equal protection under the law, and equal rights, etc....? With the exception of those states which have created an amendment specifically BANNING gay marriage, there is nothing in ANY of the others which states that gay marriage is illegal, and lots to suggest that it IS legal. Just like there's no right to privacy in the US constitution, but it is STILL a legally accepted right!

[randyjet]

Virtually all of the amendments and provisions of the US Constitution establish the right of privacy. The requirement for warrants, the ban against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to indictment by a grand jury, the ban against quartering troops, the right against self incrimination, ALL establish the rights which constitute privacy. You are simply wrong in stating that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. The whole document itself establishes that purpose.
There is NO such provision for making the states grant marriage licenses to gays in ANY constitution.

[SaraWhitman]

actually, brighterstar (but clearly not the brightest), that's not true. and if you read the ruling, the Chief Justice writes that it is a constitutional question that MUST be decided by the court.

and somewho, I think he is in a better position to make that decision than you.

[randyjet]

He will not be much longer in his position with that stupid ruling. He is up for re-election this year I believe. With his going, the law will change again which tells me that it is not a rational ruling since it has little support, just a bare majority. Warren was smart enough to figure out that to make a major change in US laws that he needed a UNANIMOUS ruling. He needed that despite the FACT that the 14th Amendment was clearly on his side as LAW and was quite clear on the subject of segregation as being illegal.

[randyjet]

As a long time liberal, I have to agree that this ruling has no basis in law or the CA Constitution, a fact which the ruling itself acknowledges ironically. The ruling simply states that since perceptions have changed by some unknown or undefined means, the law must change as well to include same sex marriages. It is a truly bizarre reading of the law and one which I am afraid will in the course of time bite liberals too. Court fiat law has in the past been on the conservative side. It was judicial activism of the Supreme Court which gave us segregation in direct contradiction to the 14th Amendment. It was judicial activism that led FDR to consider packing the Supreme Court after they struck down laws of the New Deal. It was judicial activism that allowed the jailing of unpopular opinion holders in the criminal syndicalism laws in direct violation of free speech. The list is long and dishonorable. Remember that what goes around, comes around folks. With a very conservative Supreme Court on the horizon now, we should fight against such rulings in a principled manner to preserve our liberties.

[BOBZILLA]

Didn't Hillary vote in favor of the "Defense of Marriage" bill?

[5thGenDem]

No she didn't - first ladies don't have a vote in Congress. The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Given those margins, I suspect numerous Obama supporters voted in the affirmative.

[oafishcad]

Hillary and Obama BOTH have declared they are against gay marriage, but in favor of civil unions. You know, get on the bus but sit in the back.

[SaraWhitman]

Clinton and Obama are awful on LGBT rights and issues.

Awful.

except them both to run for cover on this. God forbid they stand up and be leaders.