Marriage Equality in California!

Rainbow Law Center joins the rest of the country who values fairness and equality in applauding the decision of the California Supreme Court today in the "In re: Marriage Cases" when it said:

"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,"

"...we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand."

You can read the entire opinion by following this link (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF).

Rainbow Law Center also extends its congratulations to Shannon Minter, lead counsel and litigator, who argued the case before the Supreme Court.  Mr. Minter is the Legal Director for the National Center of Lesbian Rights and is one of the most successful and recognized transgender attorneys in the country. He serves on the boards of Equality California and the Transgender Law & Policy Institute.

Finally, it seems only fitting that this decision should come down so close in time to the passing of Mildred Loving, the woman whose case before the US Supreme Court struck down the last of the anti-miscegenation laws, laws so reviled today that young people can hardly believe they used to be on the books.  Perhaps in another generation or two people will have that same reaction to the laws barring same-sex couples from marrying. 

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.
                                                                --Mildred Loving, June 12, 2007

Comments

[tyty]

The LA Times is running a non-scientific poll, asking if the court’s decision was correct or not.

So far, it’s running more than 80 percent ‘correct’.

This is reassuring.
So is the word that the proposed amendment doesn’t involve the equal-protection clause. They’ll have to find a way to sell it to the voters that doesn’t look like ‘oh, gee, we really intend to legalize discrimination against everyone who isn’t a white heterosexual’.