Log in

No account? Create an account
14 March 2005 @ 01:03 pm
In somewhat of a surprise ruling -- at least, the reports that I saw from the hearings seem to assume the judge was going to rule otherwise -- the ban on gay marriages in California has been struck down. And the judge's writing has the sort of purity and inherent logic that, like the early rulings on civil rights, tells you who is on the wrong side.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional"
(Deleted comment)
Bryn: wordcurious_au on March 14th, 2005 10:29 pm (UTC)
in the future, people are not going to believe that anyone opposed gay marriages.
I was just thinking the same thing the other day, at a rehearsal for a theater production which is in a large part about slavery. I hope that inside twenty years, those opposing gay marriage are a source of embarassment to their descendants.
Lauratavella on March 14th, 2005 11:32 pm (UTC)
I like to think so too. Certainly, you can take quotes from the people opposing gay marriage, or even being equivocal on it, and drop in interracial references instead and it'll track perfectly to quotes from before (and reaction to) Loving vs. Virginia. And there are very, very few people these days that would even admit they ever opposed interracial marriages.
Son of the Shining Path, the Clouded Mindtorquemada on March 14th, 2005 09:46 pm (UTC)
I am deeply in love with that quote from the decision.
Lauratavella on March 14th, 2005 11:29 pm (UTC)
Yeah, it had that sort of 'oh, *yes*' resonance where you know that anyone trying to avoid agreeing with it is going to have to twist themselves into illogical knots to do so. Not that they won't do it.
Son of the Shining Path, the Clouded Mindtorquemada on March 14th, 2005 11:31 pm (UTC)
That is a particular neoconservative strength. q.v. Activist judges.