Marriage Equality in California

Today, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling for "In re Marriage Cases," thereby striking down California laws banning same-sex couples from marriage. The ruling was 4-3, though it is important to note one of the dissenting justices started her opinion with the following note:

“[i]n my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage...”

Basically, she believes there should be same-sex marriage, but it should be implemented by way of the Legislature, versus by way of the Judiciary; that the Court has over-stepped its authority in reversing the laws and ballot initiatives of the people of the State of California.

Regardless, the State of California can no longer ban same-sex couples from marrying, and will also have to recognize the marriages from those states where they are legal. This will take effect in 30 days, barring intervention on the part of the Court in postponing this action.

I never cared much about same-sex marriage until those on the right made such a big deal about it. I've said this before, and I'll say it again now: if you need a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, then such marriages are currently legal, and more importantly, Constitutionally sound. That is, laws banning such marriages are unconstitutional. If they weren't, then an amendment would not be needed.

This makes California to be the second state (after Massachusetts) in the Union who will recognize same-sex marriages, both those performed in-state as well as those from out-of-state. Currently the following states recognize civil unions, domestic partnerships, or some similar form of union other than marriage that confers some or all rights afforded married opposite-sex couples in said state: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington.

It is also quite important to keep in mind this does not force religious institutions or other entities to perform marriages with which they do not agree. Quite simply, the only persons that would possibly be forced to perform said marriages beyond their will would be civil servants; even that would be unlikely, with the State most likely finding a replacement to perform the ceremony.

It was also interesting to see the following churches, religious institutions and faiths represented by the Respondent lawyers, meaning they sided with those who won in the end:

General Synod of the United Church of Christ
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation
The Rabbinical Assembly
The Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association
Metropolitan Community Church

There were also many, many individual churches from such varied sects as Mormon, Catholic, Presbyterian, United Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, United Church of Christ, Mennonite, as well as individual faith leaders (reverends, rabbis, etc).

It's nice to see that because of a belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour does not necessarily mean that you aren't also fair-minded.

As always, let me know what you think!