From the wonderful beginning of the 9th Court’s decision:
Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.”
Here’s a fuller version:
Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted. Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition X had one effect only. It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the State, or any other authorized party, an important right—the right to obtain and use the designation of marriage’ to describe their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less. Proposition 8 therefore could not have been enacted to advance California’s interests in childrearing or responsible procreation, for it had no effect on the rights of same-sex couples to raise children or on the procreative practices of other couples. Nor did Proposition 8 have any effect on religious freedom or on parents’ rights to control their children’s education; it could not have been enacted to safeguard these liberties.
All that Proposition X accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of “marriage,” which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships. Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for “laws of this sort.”
Hoo — fuckin’– ray.
Too narrow, dodged the question, fail.
YAY! The more this gets smacked down, the wider the door opens for full equality everywhere. On to SCOTUS!!
It’s all so… logical!
@1 Yes, it is a narrow ruling, but an important one nonetheless. By limiting the decision largely to matters of fact, and to matters that Prop 8 supporters failed to prove, the court has said that all traditional arguments against marriage equality (protecting children, protecting religious freedom, etc), do not hold water.
It’s not the kind of sweeping argument that would immediately allow for marriage equality nation-wide, but it’s an important step in that direction.