Note to Self: Move Out of California!

Despite the wishes of the vast majority of Californians - and Americans - California's Supreme Court approved gay marriage today.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. The California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size - 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million - and its historic role in the vanguard of the many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

And since there is no residency requirement for marriage in California, these people will be coming from all over to get married here. And naturally, Republican Liberal Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger lacks the courage to amend the constitution to overturn the ruling.

I barely recognize this state any more. Thanks to people like Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Gavin Newsom - and all of their Liberal friends - it seems that the government here has come to support everything that I am against: sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, open borders, hatred of our troops and now, gay marriage.

Is nothing sacred?

More at Hot Air.

Comments

[On Lawn]

There is a constitutional amendment on the line. One might say they hurried up and did the ruling because it was getting ready for the ballot.

There was a real migration out of Massachusetts when they neutered marriage. I suspect the same might happen to California and, like Massachusetts, it will polarize even further.

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/07/massachsuetts-towns-kids-we-dont-want.html

[Jordan]

After reading the judgement, the main thing which stands out is that first, the court determined (correctly, IMO) that homosexuality is a "suspect classification," and therefore using a different term to describe their marriage must be subjected to "strict scrutiny" — i.e. the state must prove that it has a compelling purpose for doing so, and that the distinction is necessary (and not merely helpful) to that purpose.

What is the compelling purpose for not allowing gay couples to be married? Why is it absolutely necessary to make this distinction to serve this purpose? These two, simple questions have never been well answered by opponents of gay marriage.