Marriage equality in California

California is set to join Massachusetts as a hotbed for equality:

Same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The court’s 4-to-3 decision striking down state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman makes California only the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages. The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days, is certain to play a role in the presidential campaign.

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

As Marty Lederman points out, the most legally consequential holding here is that discrimination on the basis of sexuality ought to be treated by the same legal standards as sexual or racial discrimination. The relevant passage:

Because sexual orientation, like gender, race, or religion, is a characteristic that frequently has been the basis for biased and improperly stereotypical treatment and that generally bears no relation to an individual’s ability to perform or contribute to society, it is appropriate for courts to evaluate with great care and with considerable skepticism any statute that embodies such a classification.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. There's an attempt under way to put an initiative on the November ballot which would embed discrimination in the state Constitution; the Governator opposes it. He has also vetoed legislation passed several times which would have sanctioned marriage equality, so he's no saint.

More like this

As part of our multi-part colloquy regarding whether Martin Cothran is, in fact, a gigantic bigot for wanting to take away marriages from 18,000 gay people married in California, the Disco. Inst. blogger wonders: Isn't the whole debate about whether they are marriages in the first place? No. As…
I know I said that "all you need to know about [Martin] Cothran" is that he managed to misidentify both my employer and my profession and then repeat those easily corrected errors many times. But it turns out there's more to Cothran. Sure, he's bigoted, has an odd fascination with the word "faggot…
Julian Sanchez, the always incisive assistant editor at Reason magazine, has an interesting article about yesterday's California Superior Court ruling that struck down the state's ban on gay marriage as forbidden by that state's constitution. He points out something interesting about the judge's…
The New Jersey Supreme Court just came down with a ruling in a gay marriage case that is similar to what Vermont did a few years ago. They are requiring that all of the benefits and protections of marriage be given to gay couples, but allowing it to be called something different. Here's the key…

Victory! Only 48 to go! The Iowa Supreme Court should be hearing a similar case soon.

Joel, don't forget New Jersey. Like several other states, New Jersey's civil unions law explicitly grants all the rights of marriage (a solution open to California as well, under this ruling).

I didn't know that Josh, thanks!

Until they meet the creator of the law when they die.

Homosexuality is an abomination - Leviticus 18

Just look up Sodom and Gomorrah on the Ebla Tablets.

Jeez, you give one group equal rights, pretty soon everyone wants equal rights! Where does it end? /snark off.