What is Digg?3 Comments
- sneeper, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4From the actual opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S14 ... :
...upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.
Furthermore, 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, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. - wurk4fude, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2took a little over 4 years after Gavin Newsom's declaration in SF. Shows the speed of the legal system.
- saidwhat2, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Here are some of the points I'm getting from the decision...
In previous decision Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, the court was narrowly finding the City and County of SF to be acting unlawfully in issuing licenses in the absence of determination of the constitutionality of California marriage law. The court reserved its right to look at marriage law in the future.
This current case specifically looks at the nature and scope of the "right to marry" in California.
The "right to marry" though not in the state Constitution is nevertheless established beyond question.
California currently recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term relationship as well as responsibly raise and care for a child does not depend on sexual orientation.
The Attorney General argued over substance vs form (e.g. what you call these protective rights isn't important) .
The court responded that to establish a separate class of domestic partnership the state must prove both a compelling interest to the state in creating this classification as well proving the existence of this class being necessary to ensure the compelling interest of the state.
Specifically, excluding same-sex partners from marriage law is not necessary to ensure marriage rights for opposite sex couples.
Specifically, retaining the current definition of marriage DOES impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children.
Specifically, historic and wide disparagement of gay/lesbian individuals makes it probable that exclusion from marriage law will assume an official view of lesser stature for same-sex relationships.
Specifically, gays/lesbians treated as second class citizens is emphatically rejected by the state.
As in the case of interracial marriage (Perez), the fundamental constitutional right at issue is the freedom "to join in marriage with the person of one's choice". Therefore, the issue in question is not a new right to same-sex marriage but in fact the fundamental "right to marry".
In the case of interracial marriage (Perez), the court would still have had responsibility to rule even if the legislature had passed a law defining marriage as a union of two people of the same race.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is