PT-LawMom

Four years since Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage, California followed in its footsteps, recognizing that marriage is a fundamental legal right and that moral judgments should not be imposed on people’s marital choices in a society that is supposed to enforce the separation between church and state.

“The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” he continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.

In a second rationale from the interracial case, the court struck down the laws banning same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds, also adopting a new standard of review in the process.

When courts weigh whether distinctions among people or groups violate the right to equal protection they generally require just a rational basis for the distinction, a relatively easy standard to meet. But when the discrimination is based on race, sex or religion, the courts generally require a more substantial justification.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the majority ruled on Thursday, also requires that sort of more rigorous justification. The court acknowledged that it was the first state high court to adopt the standard, strict scrutiny, in sexual orientation cases.

Doesn’t monogamy and committed pairings fit right in with the conservative agenda? Hopefully Connecticut and other states will follow in California’s footsteps and recognize that the government should be giving equal rights to EVERYONE, whether based on skin color, religion, sexual preference, or any other category. Basic legal rights should not be limited by moral judgments, no matter how justified legislators or judges may think they are. That argument could be a slippery slope. If we say that it’s okay to pass or enforce law based on our religious beliefs then how can we go out and preach to people in countries with laws strongly shaped by religious values to change the way they operate? Hypocrites.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 at 9:19 pm and is filed under Rants . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.