Unconstitutional Marriage of Judges and Gay "Rights" Advocates

The State of California says its Constitution requires the allowance of gay marriage. It's a sad day for constitutional law when judges change the meaning of its Constitution to suit their personal preferences.

You will hear from gay marriage advocates that this is about equal rights. Really?

"current California statutes grant same sex couples who choose to become domestic partners virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law" (p.3, fn. 2, Court's Opinion)

Or is it about acceptance, and not the Constitution?

"because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this term describes a union unreservedly approved and favored by the community, there clearly is a considerable and undeniable symbolic importance to this designation" (p.103, Court's Opinion)

"designation [of domestic partnership] available to same-sex couples impinges upon the fundamental interest of same-sex couples in having their official family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that conferred upon the family relationship of opposite-sex couples" (p.105, Court's Opinion)

"As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term “marriage” and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples." (p.117-118, Court's Opinion)