browngirl: (libertyjustice (clauclauclaudia))
[personal profile] browngirl
As the BBC News put it.

Hooray! *throws confetti* *saves up to send a bouquet when San Francisco's City Hall hangs out the wedding shingle again* I've saved the Metro article if anyone wants it! Just ask.

I really hope and pray that in 20 years I will talk to Joshua and Eva about this and they'll be shocked to hear that this decision was in their lifetimes rather than Time Out Of Mind Ago. And I more proximately hope that Mr. Glenn Greenwald is right and this decision will stand. Either way, today there is a bit of justice, and there is celebration. Or in other words, WOOT!!!!! \o/

A few links:
Gov. Schwarzenegger will not seek to terminate. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Bigots Opponents vow to fight ruling.
San Francisco Chronicle article.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's reaction which is hearteningly just what I expected.
PDF of the decision. And from that PDF, this quotation (with thanks to [livejournal.com profile] griffen):

Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage, (2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment. As the United States Supreme Court observed in its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. 558, 579, the expansive and protective provisions of our constitutions, such as the due process clause, were drafted with the knowledge that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”

For this reason, the interest in retaining a tradition that excludes an historically disfavored minority group from a status that is extended to all others — even when the tradition is long-standing and widely shared — does not necessarily represent a compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection analysis.

Date: 2008-05-16 03:04 pm (UTC)
ext_51: Parker from Leverage hanging upside-down, gleeful. (I haven't been to a prom since)
From: [identity profile] red-eft.livejournal.com
\o/
Man, about *time*, CA. I remember being in middle school when DOMA passed, staying up late and watching the news- I think they had a pie graph? there was some kind of graph, on a blue background- and thinking, "Well, 22% isn't *that* much of a lead, is it? It could still change by morning..." and being so *depressed* when it passed. I mean, *California*, fercryingoutloud. I can't believe it took us this long to repeal it.

(insert obligatory Governator rant here- my uncle, who used to work with him, told me that he'd agonized over the earlier decision to veto overturning it- he used to work in Hollywood! he knows gay people! but he had to represent his constitueants or something, which, you know, boo fricken' hoo, Arnie.)

Date: 2008-05-21 06:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] browngirl.livejournal.com
Your ObGovRant made me laugh and laugh, it truly did. :D

Date: 2008-05-17 04:27 pm (UTC)

Date: 2008-05-21 06:30 pm (UTC)

Profile

browngirl: (Default)
browngirl

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    12 3
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 19th, 2025 11:00 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios