california, ur doin' it RIGHT
May. 15th, 2008 11:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ekaterinnOkay, I was going to post about work being sucky, but then I found out that CALIFORNIA REPEALED ITS BAN ON GAY MARRIAGES. *is unbelievably giddy* That's two states and one country in North America where I can get married to anyone I want. As ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
copperbadge said, there's nothing like a wedding in a May, especially when it annoys the fundies.
From the ruling itself:
Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage, (2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment. As the United States Supreme Court observed in its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. 558, 579, the expansive and protective provisions of our constitutions, such as the due process clause, were drafted with the knowledge that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”
For this reason, the interest in retaining a tradition that excludes an historically disfavored minority group from a status that is extended to all others — even when the tradition is long-standing and widely shared — does not necessarily represent a compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection analysis.
*grins* Anyone up for going to California and getting hitched?
copperbadge said, there's nothing like a wedding in a May, especially when it annoys the fundies.From the ruling itself:
Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage, (2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment. As the United States Supreme Court observed in its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. 558, 579, the expansive and protective provisions of our constitutions, such as the due process clause, were drafted with the knowledge that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”
For this reason, the interest in retaining a tradition that excludes an historically disfavored minority group from a status that is extended to all others — even when the tradition is long-standing and widely shared — does not necessarily represent a compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection analysis.
*grins* Anyone up for going to California and getting hitched?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-16 10:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-18 06:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-16 10:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-16 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-18 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-18 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-19 06:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-16 04:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-18 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-17 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-18 06:28 pm (UTC)As a side note, how are you doing nowadays? Haven't heard from you lately...
no subject
Date: 2008-05-19 11:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-19 07:00 pm (UTC)