Truer Words

"The equal protection clause is therefore, by its nature, inherently countermajoritarian. As a logical matter, it cannot depend on the will of the majority for its enforcement, for it is the will of the majority against which the equal protection clause is designed to protect."

This was written in the "Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Moreno, J." in today's CA Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8. From my brief read-through, he seems to be concurring with upholding the validity of the existing marriages, but dissenting with upholding the ban on future ones.

I don't want to get into this topic as a whole, because I have a lot to say, and not enough time to do it right now. But here's a link to the decision (in .pdf form). Just search for "Concurring and Dissenting" to find Justice Moreno's opinion.

The one important thing to remember here is that the court was ruling on the validity of the amendment - not on the amendment itself. So headlines saying the court ruled to uphold the ban are somewhat misleading. They ruled that the amendment was lawfully and correctly enacted by the people. Now, it's beyond me to say if this was the correct ruling in this case, so I won't even try. Just keep in mind what exactly they were ruling on.

This is, after all, the same court that overturned the "law form" of this issue a few years ago, because it was unconstitutional. And one day, we will be past this dark time in our state's history. I can only hope that it comes sooner, rather than later.