For all the high-minded talk about constitutional rights, what informs the Court's decision is a value judgment that all sexual choices are equal. This is, of course, what motivates all activists on this issue, since it is logically and legally nonsensical to insist upon "equal rights" when the defining thing that separates one class of persons from another is not some innate visual characteristic but rather a behavior. All people are equal under the law. This is the meaning of the phrase "equal rights." No serious person argues that all actions are equal under the law - and even if they did, this would not be called "equal rights." It would be called instead "anarchy."I couldn't agree more (especially about the Coke thing).
It is often argued (although never proven) that there is a biological basis for homosexuality. For a moment, I will concede the point. Those who argue along this line generally also accept that there are biological bases for alcoholism, drug addiction, and a whole host of other behavioral tendencies. This does not lead to the conclusion under the rubric of "equal rights" that the alcoholic and drug addict may not be held accountable for the fruits of their biologically-based addiction. This illustrates with clarity that "equal rights" is not the driving force behind the gay marriage movement; it is instead a desire to impose the value judgment that homosexual sexual activity is a value-neutral choice, akin to the choice between Pepsi and Coke (all sane people will of course choose Coke, but that is beside the point).
But there is a fundamental problem that I have with the decision, regardless of the legal reasoning. This is a matter that the people of California voted on in a referendum (and probably will again in November). So not only as the California Supreme Court overturned a valid law, passed by the penultimate legislative body, the voters themselves, they appear to have done so without a shred of irony about the matter. So what are we left with, the notion that no matter how the people act, in a perfectly and authorized legitimate manner, there will always be some judge who thinks they know better.
This is not a court taming a legislative impulse gone wrong, but a Court that has decided that their moral judgment is better than the collective wisdom of the largest state in the union.
Now before some gets all high and mighty on me. I would have the same reaction if a more conservative court has ruled that a referendum permitting same sex marriage was a vioaltion of rights. Gay marriage is a matter of public policy, the resolution of which is properly before the legisalture or the voters.