California Won Marriage!!!

The California Supreme Court ruled yesterday that marriage discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation is unconstitutional, and that every Californian should have the right to choose to marry the person they love!

The ruling said, "In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodies in the right to marry--and their central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society--the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation."

The California Supreme Court is the most influential state high court in the country--no other court is cited and or has its opinions followed more. Yesterday's decision will create a huge ripple effect through our nation, and American society will shift as we know it. 

This is such a big win! Not for only for same-sex couples, but for every Californian. This amazing victory is not just about making history, changing the law or even about setting landmark jurisprudence. This is about friends and family, people we know, and people we love. As long time, staunch allies for the LGBT community, Max and I are incredibly happy about this decision! This means that our family and close friends, including named plaintiffs Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis, a couple we became friends with through Marriage Equality USA, will finally have access to the same rights that I as a heterosexual woman have. 

My friend Molly McKay on MSNBC:

Also, check out this local Bay Area news clip where you can see Stuart and John, Molly and her partner Davina, and our good friends David and Jeff (not pictured) Janis-Kitzmiller, at the 1:30 mark.

And here is an excerpt from the message received yesterday at work from Matt Coles, the Director of ACLU's LGBT Project:

"From a constitutional lawyer’s standpoint, this decision is just about everything we could have hoped for. The Court rules—in general—that sexual orientation is not a legitimate reason to treat gay people differently. In lawyer’s jargon, the court held that sexual orientation is a “suspect” classification, just like gender and race classifications.

In a wonderful passage, the court points out that excluding gay people from marriage is hardly necessary to preserve heterosexual marriage, since allowing same-sex couples to marry takes nothing away from anyone else. Amen.

Three things really set this opinion apart.

First, the Court’s constitutional reasoning is absolutely first rate.

Second, the Court’s writing is clear and accessible.

Finally, the Court realized it was writing not just for lawyers and other courts, but for the people and for history. I know I will never forget the moment when I read this passage near the start of the Court’s opinion:

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.

I went in to see Steve Shapiro, the ACLU’s Legal Director, and I tried to read this to him. I fell apart. This, legally, politically and socially, is what we’ve been working to convince Americans of from the start of the LGBT rights movement.

This may not be the end of our battle. But this is a landmark.

Matt Coles

Director

ACLU LGBT Project