I’ve been tied up all day with work and the latest appeal in my and my wife’s long fight with our health insurance company, so I’m late to the party on this one…but it seems that the California Supreme Court has found on a 4-3 vote that prohibiting same-gender marriage is unconstitutional. I’ll defer to this post at Daily Kos for the summary.
I guess congratulations will soon be in order for some happy couples.
Driving home this evening, I listened to a few talking heads on the radio regarding what this might mean. For example, here in Connecticut, it’s expected that the logic behind today’s ruling will appear in arguments in a pending lawsuit which argues that our civil unions aren’t an acceptable compromise on the subject of marriage. In CT and probably a few other states, this ruling will likely reinvigorate efforts to amend state constitutions to institutionalize homophobia.
In other words, the GOP might have an issue to campaign on this fall…one which would perhaps distract a few sheeple away from other issues plaguing the pachyderms.
I’ll take this opportunity to repeat my thoughts on the subject: If you view marriage as being religious in nature, than it is arrogant beyond all belief for the state to dictate whom God can or cannot join together. State recognition of marriage should be a reflection of a relationship that has formed, not a set of guidelines as to who may have relations. Such restrictions could be viewed as just as inane as legislation governing who may or may not be baptized or ordained.
If you prefer to view marriage as a social construct…well, the last time I checked, politicians and bureaucrats are frequently not the folks I want to emulate when looking for social guidance. Recognition of relationships defined by society should recognize differences in interpretation and evolution in those social norms.
I would prefer to see states get out of the marriage business. Have civil unions, gender-blind, as a means for packaging up a bundle of legal privileges and responsibilities. People can informally/conversationally view some or all civil unions as “marriage” according to their norms, but the state avoiding dealing with such an emotion-charged term is probably the fairest treatment of all.