Comments on: On the California Gay Marriage Decision http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/05/on-the-california-gay-marriage-decision/ A Stitch in Time Saves Nine ... But Haste Makes Waste Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:23:54 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Tom Chatt http://www.kipesquire.net/2008/05/on-the-california-gay-marriage-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-6221 Tom Chatt Tue, 20 May 2008 09:15:51 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=4171#comment-6221 I'm no expert on this, but I don't see why, even if the initiative passes, the findings of the Court's opinion would cease to be "good law". Not only is it awesome that they have rightly establised sexual orientation as a suspect class. But even if the constitutional DOMA amendment passes in November, the Court will have established our fundamental right to marry and to enjoy nothing less than fully equal protection. In other words, those who vote for the amendment in November should at least be aware that they are voting to explicitly curtail equal protection and a fundamental right. They can alter the constitution, but they can't alter the finding. <BR /> <BR />In general, I was impressed with how straightforward and common-sense the opinion was. The Court refused to indulge in any semantic games from either side -- straightforward construction of the initiative DOMA statute, refusal to spin sexual orientation discrimination as gender discrimination, refusal to buy the "right to same-sex marriage is a whole new right" nonsense. All around, it was impressively reasoned. I'm no expert on this, but I don't see why, even if the initiative passes, the findings of the Court's opinion would cease to be "good law". Not only is it awesome that they have rightly establised sexual orientation as a suspect class. But even if the constitutional DOMA amendment passes in November, the Court will have established our fundamental right to marry and to enjoy nothing less than fully equal protection. In other words, those who vote for the amendment in November should at least be aware that they are voting to explicitly curtail equal protection and a fundamental right. They can alter the constitution, but they can't alter the finding.

In general, I was impressed with how straightforward and common-sense the opinion was. The Court refused to indulge in any semantic games from either side — straightforward construction of the initiative DOMA statute, refusal to spin sexual orientation discrimination as gender discrimination, refusal to buy the "right to same-sex marriage is a whole new right" nonsense. All around, it was impressively reasoned.

]]>