In re Marriage Cases

This morning, I watched the televised coverage of the California Supreme Court's oral arguments on the same-sex marriage cases, In re Marriage Cases.

Being new to California, I'm not aware enough of the reputations of the justices. It was interesting to watch without knowing the personal histories and decisions by the justices.

Some gave away which side to which they leaned, while several asked pointed questions to both sides of the cases. Just as in the U.S. Supreme Court, even if you know the leanings of a justice, you still can't always predict the outcome.

I have no idea which way the court will decide.

They asked enough questions about leaving it to the legislature to handle, but also noted that the legislature has twice voted to extend marriage to gays and lesbians only to have it vetoed by the governor. It isn't so much a tyranny of the majority as the tyranny of one; the court is being asked to basically break a political stalemate.

The court did seem to struggle with taking a former holding regarding interracial marriages from 1948 and extend the rationale to this case. Likewise, there was some reluctance to grant protected class status to gays and lesbians.

Finally, several seemed to buy the State's position that the gender discrimination in the opposite-sex statute was in fact, gender neutral because both sexes have equal rights in regards to getting married, except to someone of the same gender.

It will be interesting to see the decision when it comes out. It isn't due for 90 days.