CALIFORNIA, LAND OF FRUITS AND NUTS (AND NOW GAY MARRIAGE)

OR

HOW ELLEN GOT HER MARRIAGE ON

I haven't read the California Supreme Court's decision, but I suspect it's legally correct. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, our great and esteemed Supreme Court of U.S. of A., had this to say about liberty:

Our cases recognize "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.

(citations omitted). Ah, sweet mystery of life! After reading those wonderful words, people began wondering whether homosexual relations were "matters so fundamentally affecting a person" that the state could not prohibit such relations without violating the "liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment." Lo, and behold, those people were correct! Check out what are Great and All-Knowing Supreme Court said (via Justice Kennedy) next in Lawrence v. Texas:

To say that the issue in Bowers [that's the case that said states can prohibit sodomy] was simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse. The laws involved in Bowers and here are, to be sure, statutes that purport to do no more than prohibit a particular sexual act. Their penalties and purposes, though, have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home. The statutes do seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals.

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

Ah, so inspiring!! But wait, if the government can't tell me that one form of expressing my sexuality is better than another (i.e. by prohibiting the practice of it), then why can the government promote one form of sexual relationship (i.e. heterosexual) to the detriment of another? I know that Lawrence had that "proviso" about "an institution the law protects," but that's not fair! I want my form of personal relationship given the same benefits as heterosexual relationships. And why is hetero marriage so great anyway? If one form of finding a "personal bond that is more enduring" is as good as another, marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman should be allowed!!!

Well, fear not, dear reader. The California Supreme Court has heard your cries. And delivered a doozy.

Polygamy here we come!!!!