View Single Post
Old 03-18-2005, 05:43 PM   #13
innerSpaceman
Kink of Swank
 
innerSpaceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Inner Space
Posts: 13,075
innerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of coolinnerSpaceman is the epitome of cool
Send a message via AIM to innerSpaceman Send a message via MSN to innerSpaceman Send a message via Yahoo to innerSpaceman
I just love some of the common sense statements contained within Judge Kramer's ruling:

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this State to opposite-sex partners."

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such consitutional violation has become traditional."

"... a statute lacking a reasonable connection to a legitimate state interest cannot acquire such a connection simply by surviving unchallenged over time."

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."

"The idea that California's marriage law does not discriminate upon gender is incorrect."

"To say that all men and women are treated the same in that each may not marry someone of the same gender misses the point."

"The marriage laws establish classifications (same gender vs. opposite gender) and discriminate based on those gender-based qualifications."

"The argument that the marriage limitations are not discriminatory because they are gender neutral is similar to arguments in cases dealing with anti-miscegenation laws."

"... the parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose whom one wants to marry."

"... this court has determined that the State's two rationales (tradition and tradition plus marriage rights without marriage) do not constitute a legitimate governmental interest for the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples."

"Under our present opposite-sex only law, marriage is available to heterosexual couples regardless of whether they can or want to procreate. As long as they choose an opposite-sex mate, persons beyond child-bearing age, infertile persons, and those who choose not to have children may marry in California. Persons in each category are allowed to marry even though they do not satisfy any perceived legitimate compelling government interest in procreation."

"... the denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary."



Judge Kramer is a straight Republican, appointed by Pete Wilson.

Last edited by innerSpaceman : 03-21-2005 at 01:53 PM.
innerSpaceman is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote