[HoosierHawk]

"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."

Sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender...(shakes head)

[Argus]

the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship

This must be in the "penumbra" becaue it's nowhere in the California constitution as written.

[CharlesWayneCT]

It’s not the individual part that’s the problem.

It’s that they have now ruled that COUPLES have equal rights.

You always had the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex, whether you were gay or straight.

But they have now ruled that your rights are based on your status in RELATIONSHIP to another.

There were no individual legal rights being withheld. The state never gave the “right” to do what felt best to you, just the right to get certain benefits if you formed a monogomous heterosexual relationship.

I can think of no compelling state interest in encouraging same-sex couples. I can define the compelling state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples.

The court has ruled that I can NOT find a compelling reason to encourage one, and not the other.

California needs a marriage amendment. Arnold is fighting it.