California Supreme Court Says Gay Partners have right to use "Married" to describe their relationships.

The Supreme's did it! They decided that the State Constitution gives people the basic right to form long-term relationships known as marriage. Further that this right applies regardless of sexual orientation. They reject the Attorney General's contention that separate but equivalent (married vs. domestic partnership) terminology is sufficient.

What an amazing thing. I've thought that was logical for years, but finally the court of one of the country's most populated states agrees. Of course the right wing will go nuts on this, arguing that's why we need a constitutional amendment, but I think the logic holds.

"As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, 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, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution
properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

The Court points out that this is a question of civil marriage, not religious marriage. It seems to me that's the key to moving forward on this issue. What rites the various religious want to perform around their relationships should not determine the legal relationship and rights accorded to all (even non-religious) citizens. The churches should stay out of property rights and inheritance rules, and health benefit rules, and stay with questions that apply strictly to their own members...their members relationships with their God and within their community.

Now I recognize that most religions also say something about a believer's relationship to the larger community. And I affirm that. But in a heterogeneous society, with multiple religions, there needs to be a distinction between the specific beliefs and practices of one religion, and the rules the larger community agrees upon.

Therein lies the rub, of course. Where should that line be drawn. But if we say that a specific religion can set the rules, then why not let those Texas polymagmist sects determine how we all should marry. Or maybe Food & Drug laws should be determined by Shiite Muslims. There are good reasons to argue for separation of Church & State. Those christians who try to break down those barriers are in for a rude awakening. As the US becomes more culturally diverse, and whites move into the majority, the separation becomes more important. What about communities that are majority Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hmong, or Pentecostal. Can all students in a Muslim-dominated suburb be required to wear head scarfs to public school? The Xn Right's argument implies that.

But then I seldom see them following their arguments to a logical outcome (at least not an outcome that takes the real multicultural 21st Century into account)

But anyway. I think this is a step forward for the US, in the midst of so many steps backwards.

That said, on the religious front, I don't think any of the local church bodies (except maybe Unitarian and UCC) allow blessed unions as a matter of course. Even the Episcopalians don't do it. So the religious folks here are considerable behind the curve on this one.