The court then further held that granting marriage rights to same sex couples does not impinge on the marriage rights of heterosexual couples–primarily because same-sex couples would be enjoying exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples, no more & no less. This holding thus made it clear that the State of California does not have a compelling interest that would allow it to deny the rights, privileges & benefits of marriage to same sex couples. Note that a “compelling interest” is the only tool that allows a State to intercede in fundamental constitutional rights.

One of the dissenters to the decision clearly stated that she believed that same-sex couples should have access to full marriage rights, but that same sex couples should wait until the “will of the people” moved in that direction, as it has already begun to move. The majority disagreed with that notion, stating that what is Constitutionally correct does not have a “waiting period.” The constitution, is the ultimate expression of the will of the people, and overrides any interest that the electorate or the legislature might have in delaying changes or granting rights to individuals. So what is officially a 4/3 split decision is, in effect, more of 5/2 decision.

DB wrote:

I actually heard the excitement in my friends voice when I found out. And happiness. And excitement. And relief. Made especially more cool by the fact that it happened right before their 20th anniversary (congrats again!).

Yep, that just about covers it. The decision came down on 5/15/08, our 20th was 5/23/08. I lost a husband the day of the decision, but I gained a fiancé. So, rather than mourning, we’re celebrating. Relief doesn’t begin to describe the feeling. My sister is a resident of Massachusetts, and has been married to her partner for 4 years now. At the time, we considered heading over there, but it wouldn’t have been real at home. Same thing when San Francisco started granting marriage licenses. We wanted it to be real. It will be on October 12th. Finally. And, yes, we’re excited & happy. Who wouldn’t be, when one of their dearest & deepest dreams has come true?

But, the gist of the decision is that by not allowing gay couples to marry, the State was discriminating against gay couples for a number of reasons.

Honestly, I think you caught just about every emotion I was feeling at the time I called you.

I did a quick search on trademark law and found the following under US Code: Title 15, Chapter 22, Subchapter III, paragraph 1127;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001127—-000-.html

“A mark shall be deemed to be “abandoned” if either of the following occurs:

…

(2) When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark.”

Just food for thought, now I’ve got to get ready for work

I’ve always thought that marriage came out of religion, before governments decided to make a law out of it and give rights to couples. At that point the should have called it, let’s say, snoogling and then the religious folks could say they got snoogled by marriage and the civil union folk would say they got snoogled by a clerk, or a friend etc. Bottom line is that everyone is snoogled and happy, same rights etc. The religious nuts can harp on about gays snoogling but they can go jump because gays have every right to be snoogled. But if the church wants to stop them “marrying” then that’s their deal and we can continue to condemn them for it, but basically let them get on with it.

Also, a quick search for the etymology of marriage; (Markdown eludes me for some reason so cut and paste, lol)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marriage

…shows: 1297, from O.Fr. mariage (12c.), from V.L. *maritaticum, from L. maritatus, pp. of maritatre “to wed, marry, give in marriage” (see marry).

When you look for “Marry” you see that in this context it is derived from the Oath itself. Gender does not enter the equation until religion does.