After reading through some claims of legal import, made by an acquaintance of mine, I decided it would be worthwhile to read through the decision in Marriage Cases. For those who don't know "Marriage Cases" was the case in which the California Supreme Court struck down the provisions put in place by proposition 22 in 2000. It is the reason why Proposition 8 was put on the California ballot for this coming November.

My acquaintance made the claim that the decision in "Marriage Cases" was based on the same reasoning that went into former decisions determining that it was illegal to prohibit interracial marriages. This, in my mind, is possibly the most reasonable argument I've read yet. However, that is not to say it is not without its flaws.

The flaw, I immediately noticed, even before reading through a large part of the decision. It is in the very definition of marriage. After reading as much as I have I can also note that amidst the 172 pages of justification for their flawed decision, the 4 judges who struck down the will of the public they serve were kind enough to give a history of the legal definition of marriage. It was a fact beyond even their ability to obfuscate, that in California, marriage is, by legal definition, a union of a man with a woman. This has been true of California law ever since California has had a constitution and has never changed (until it became inconvenient to these four judges). The decision states as much. They note that the "right to marry" has been recognized in California for some time now. However, in interpreting and applying the "right to marry", they do not use the legal definition of marriage, but their own. They do a pretty good job a trying to make us overlook the sham by quoting the definition they use from others, but regardless of that, the definition they used was not valid in the context of California law.

Before reading a single sentence of the decision, it was clear to me that the presumption made by these judges (that gays are being denied the right to marry) is necessarily connected to a definition of marriage. This definition is necessarily ideologically based, if it is not legally based. I did not know at the time that the legal definition I was aware of had a constitutional basis, (I was merely aware of the statutory basis) but as the justices who made the decision were kind enough to own up to it, it seems they are so beyond excuse in using their own definition, that it's really rather appalling. Apparently their ideology is above the law.

There are further issues, but what more need I speak of it.