Way to go, California!

I'm not the type of girl who cries easily. Not at commercials or sappy movies, the way some people do. No, usually somebody has to die for me to get all choked up. But yesterday, I felt myself get a little teary as I heard that the Supreme Court of California had "lifted the ban" on same-sex marriage. It wasn't so much the happening of the whole thing, but the wording of the opinion (which is 121 pages, but most definitely worth a read).

"First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation

of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full

protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently

are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples...."

When I came upon this phrase, I felt as if my entire belief system had been validated. The very idea that defining a same-sex partnership as MARRIAGE does not threaten the "traditional" concept of marriage is something that many of us have been arguing for a long time. Additionally, the opinion goes on to say something to the effect that assigning a special designation to same-sex partnerships only reaffirms the common feeling that they are not the same, and are somehow different, or "less," than heterosexual couplings. The opinion goes beyond saying that it's wrong to call it something else when it's really the same thing; the judges pretty much state unequivocally that it IS the same thing, therefore it IS marriage - with all the rights and responsibilities - and trying to call it something else is just silly. And I get the impression that if they could have, they would have said, "The California constitution is pretty clear on this, and all you people that have a problem with that can just go pound sand."

I think what I like the most about this is how the whole thing happened. Thanks to one enterprising mayor, who got himself sued for it, dozens of couples were able to marry in San Francisco 2004. And I think the court made it very clear when they said, "Look, we understand that people have really strong opinions about this issue. But it is our job to determine if denying marriage to same-sex couples violates the state constitution." And the conclusion was that it did, so they said so. I really respect that.

However, I feel as if I must conclude with a warning. Conservatives have spent at least $10 million trying to get a definition of marriage act on the ballot for this November. We will find out next month whether they managed to gather enough legitimate signatures for this to happen. So, as great as this victory is, it might be short-lived. We can never give up on the fight, because around every corner lurks somebody else who doesn't want to recognize our relationships.