Well, advocates of gay marriage will be giddy today, with the state Supreme Court ruling:
we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
I disagree with this ruling because I believe the decisions the Court made better belong with the legislature and/or the people. And am troubled by the court’s dismissing their role in deciding this issue, particularly given that the court is redefining an institution which has long had a particular meaning, that of being a union of one man and one woman.
UPDATE: I’m reading the decision for a piece I was asked to write for Pajamas. I’m finding the court makes some solid political arguments. I hope to offer further comments on this. Right now, I’m really troubled that the court reduces marriage to “two adults who share a loving relationship” (p. 7 of the opinion).
Wish the media world weren’t as it is sometimes so I didn’t have to rush to get my opinion out there. Would rather digest this. I’m taking copious notes on my printout of the ruling (well of the first few pages as it’s over 100 pages).
UP-UPDATE: Seem Glenn Reynolds’ opinion is pretty similar to my own, though I’m more ambivalent about gay marriage than he: “Personally, I favor gay marriage, but I think it would be much better if it were adopted through political, rather than judicial, channels — though I realize that some would call that a distinction without a difference where California is concerned. . . .”