The CA Superior Court judge, Richard A Kramer, who has been hearing the cases challenging the ban on same-sex marriage has ruled, saying that the prohibition is a blatant violation of the equal protection clause, and has no justification whatsoever.
The decision can stand as the basis for overturning all such discriminatory legislation.
The opinion is even a good read (Kramer is a Pete Wilson appointee with a finely-crafted sense of irony), that demolished all arguments that proponents of the ban might try to carry forward on appeal. A fine smackdown, indeed.
Update [2005-3-14 22:21:41 by David Finley]: The other diaries on this topic are
here,
here, and here.
The opinion is a quick read, for anyone who wants to see just how throughly Kramer quashed the arguments made by the plaintiffs (who argued to keep the same-sex ban).
For the legal types, the judge determined that there was no "rational basis" for prohibiting same-sex marriage, let alone any "compelling state interest" in doing so, and, because both "suspect classes" and fundamental human rights were involved, a review under the "strict scrutiny" standard was also necessary, which the ban utterly failed to meet.
I'll just cover a a few choice points in the opinion.
The plaintiffs tried to argue that because the law probihited both males and females from marrying each other, there was no discrimination based on gender - Kramer shot that down easily, pointing out the anti-miscegenators tried that same crap earlier.
The plaintiffs tried the line that it's ok not to allow people of the same sex to marry because the State has already granted them most of the other benefits of marriage. Let me quote the full paragraph dealing with that:
In this context, the existence of marriage-like rights without marriage actually cuts against the existence of a rational government interest for denying marriage to same-sex couples. California's enactment of rights for same-sex couples belies any argument that the state would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage in order to preclude same-sex couples from acquiring some marital right that might somehow be inappropriate for them to have. No party has argued the existence of such an inappropriate right, and this court cannot think of one. Thus, the State's position that California nas granted marriage-like rights to same-sex couples points to the conclusion that there is no rational state interest in denying them the rights of marriage as well.
The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal.
A great way to put the burden of proof where it belongs - and, really, the crux of the argument - can anyone who wants to ban same-sex marriage claim that it is "inapproriate" for anyone to have any of the associated rights of marriage, let alone the right of marriage, itself?
The best comeuppance came in dealing with several CA court cases (reaching back to 1859!) that the plaintiffs cited as evidence that "California courts have long recognized that the purpose of marriage is procreation" and that the same-sex ban furthers an alleged state interest in furthering procreation (are these people just unbelievable, or what?).
The plaintiffs cited a single line from the 1859 case, which the judge reviewed, giving the full citation, and then delivered this priceless line:
Accordingly, the line in Baker regarding the "first purpose of matrimony" no more supports a rational governmental purpose to preclude same-sex marriage than would the line in the same paragraph that "with a man of honor, the purity of the wife is essential" support a notion that in California, only virgins can marry.
After a review of all the cases cited by the plaintiffs, and finding that none of the cases supported their arguments by one whit, comes the money quote that's in some of the news reports:
The facts in plaintiffs' cases also confirm the obvious natural and social reality that one does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married.
The judge went on to cite "the fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry", and concluded that "the denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary".
All in all, a fine decision, that hits all the points of substance, and even has some good zingers to use against the self-righteous.