It’s about time
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.
Bleech!
), done the laundry and made dinner for Pumpkinhead and then had something else waiting for Chapin and I each night! 
She makes Pumpkinhead a healthy breakfast and then takes him to school at 8:30 and picks him up at 3:30, much more reasonable hours than before when I was dropping him off at 7 and he was getting picked up at 6:30 by whoever happened to be able to get him that night. 
She’s promised not to touch my home office with all my school stuff, although now I wonder if maybe I should let her… 
!
Tried that last semester at exam time and look what happened. He said I could try Capsaicin cream (burns like you wouldn’t believe!), but that I should come in to see him ASAP to talk about alternative medications.
Meds for the meds - yippee. Sound crazy, but I was literally weeping in my car and in front of Pumpkinhead so I had to get on something. So my current choices are the following:
(P.S. I did try the cream, but it requires application four times a day for a week before it deadens the nerves sufficiently to get full relief. I’ll keep going but in the meantime it just feels like someone sliced my arm and rubbed the cut with Habanero slices.)
