I suspect this one will end up helping John McCain in a number of states in the fall – after all, we know that Barack Obama will select judges who will follow the California reasoning if elected.

Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall. As the decision came down, out-of-breath staff members ran into the mayor's office where Gavin Newsom read the decision.

I find it rather shocking that, given the pending vote on a state constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, the justices (and I use that term loosely) didn't stay the decision until the people had the opportunity to speak on the issue in November.

But even more worrisome in my book is that there is some real slippery language in this opinion – that “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship” could just as easily morph into the reasoning that supports overturning laws defining marriage as a monogamous institution. After all, there is no logical basis for denying such marriages if such a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship” exists – and given that there is significantly more precedent for it in Western society AND at least one major world religion that still practices polygamy today, there is even less of a rational basis to allow that limitation under the Constitution.

Posted by: Greg at 11:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.