The war for equality is far from over but another important battle has been won.  Yesterday the California Supreme Court ruled that statutes limiting marriage to only between a man and a woman are not constitutional.  The 4-3 ruling drew heavily on its 1948 ruling in a case that ended restrictions on interracial marriage.

The opinion is a fascinating read and you can find the full text here.  Some key thoughts:

The court ruled that differential treatment provided to same-sex couples (through domestic partnership laws) did not serve a compelling state interest:

“…permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage…”

“…affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will … impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.”

“…providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state – that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects ‘second-class citizens’…”

As mentioned before, conservative forces in the state are gathering momentum and will likely place an initiative on the November ballot to change the state constitution and define marriage specifically as between a man and a woman, a move that would invalidate Thursday’s ruling.  There is also the question of if – and how – the court’s ruling will play out in the Presidential campaign.

There seems to be good reason to think that it won’t carry the weight that it had in the 2004 and other previous elections.  Matthew Dowd, one of Bush’s chief strategists in the 2004 campaign, was quoted in the NY Times talking about the effect the ruling will have in the general election: “At best, it doesn’t move voters, and at worst for the Republicans, it moves them against them.  Not so much on the issue, but it becomes, ‘Why are we having a discussion on this issue when we should be talking about things that matter, like the economy, or health care, or the war?’ “

But don’t relax and let your guard down.  Christianists – those hard-line fundamentalist Christians that have more in common with their Jihadist brethren than they do with the teachings of Jesus – won’t rest until the world is remade in their own image and each of us either march in lock-step with them, or are (in their assumption of how it will work out) roasting in hell.

Tonight, though, Tawn and I will open a bottle of sparkling wine (with Mario, a visiting guest from Chicago) and toast the victory in this battle.  In doing so, I will make a wish that those who would oppress us will perhaps be moved upon seeing that even in their loss, the world has not ended: Marriages will remain marriages, faith will remain faith, and respect and compassion will remain the abiding ways with which we should treat each other.

On March 4th the California Supreme Court heard case S147999, in re Marriage Cases.  This is a compilation of six appellate court cases that have been filed on the issue of whether California’s statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violates the “equal protection” clause of the state constitution.  The recording of the arguments before the court and the questioning by the justices is available here in the audio archive.  It is 214 minutes long and is tremendously fascinating to listen to.

One of the most interesting challenges the justices made to lawyers on both sides of the case was about the fact that California already gives domestic partners virtually the exact same rights and responsibilities as different-sex couples receive through marriage.

For the petitioners on behalf of overturning the ban on same-sex marriage, the justices asked why, when the state already gives the same functional rights and benefits to same-sex couples as different-sex ones, is it discrimination?

For the petitioners on behalf of sustaining the ban, the justices asked whether the very existence of a “separate but equal” status proves the discriminatory nature of the ban.

My general impression after listening to the audio is that those in favor of sustaining the ban faced much tougher scrutiny by the justices.  This makes me hopeful that the justices will rule in favor of overturning the ban.

Right: Does its visibility in popular culture mean that the nation is ready for gay marriage?

Already, there is an effort underway to put an initiative on the California ballot that will alter the state constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.  If this were to happen, it would be a tremendous setback.  I’ll be asking for your support whether or not you are a Californian (or even an American) to encourage the voters of the state to make the choice that preserves the rights and liberties of all the state’s citizens and does not enshrine discrimination into the constitution.

The court has announced that it will release its ruling on Thursday, May 15th at 10:00 am PDT (5:00 pm GMT).  Stay tuned as the announcement, regardless of the ruling is, will represent an important and significant milestone in the march towards equal rights for gay and lesbian people.

It is worth noting that it was this same court that in 1948 was the first supreme court in the nation to rule that anti-miscegenation laws (prohibiting marriage between people of different races) were unconstitutional in the case Perez v. Sharp.  This landmark ruling preceded the nation’s Supreme Court ruling on the same issue by 19 years. 

I hope that on Thursday the state supreme court once again serves as a bellwether of changes to come across the nation, so that one day Tawn and I will have the legal right to be married in the United States and enjoy federal benefits such as immigration rights.