Don't get too excited! This decision was made by the California Supreme Court (in a 4 to 3 ruling). So, guess what, not everyone had such a great reaction to the court "abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench." So, the decision will go to the people.
The November ballot will include a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to unions between men and women. So if more than half of California voters approve the measure, it could neutralize last month's state Supreme Court ruling.
While I AGREE with the decision of the court, I'm not sure if I agree with how it was done. The Judicial branch is supposed to INTERPRET the laws, not make them.
From the LA Times:
The three dissenting justices argued that it was up to the electorate or the Legislature to decide whether gays should be permitted to marry.
"In my view, California should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriage," Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the first sentence of her dissent.
"But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of Californians hold a different view and have explicitly said so by their vote. This court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do so. Here, the Constitution does not."
Justice Marvin R. Baxter, joined by Justice Ming W. Chin, said the ruling "creates the opportunity for further judicial extension of this perceived constitutional right into dangerous territory."
"Who can say that in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?" Baxter wrote.
Okay, Baxter's probably being an alarmist here, but he makes a valid point. If you can look at it objectively, without any agenda getting in the way. Anyway, I say leave it to the people to decide. I have faith in my fellow Californians! I think...