First, let me say that I understand that the California Supreme Court decision is dependent upon their interpretation of the California Constitution. I believe that this needs to be rethought. Why should the Constitution of California rule? Decisions with respect to marriage impact other states and the IRS (as marital state is a consideration in Federal tax filling). As such, I believe the US Constitution should rule.
Now look, I'm not a lawyer. But that seems right to me. So what do I think the US Constitution says on this topic?
Again, I'm not a lawyer. Certainly not a Constitutional lawyer. But I can read. The US Constitution says
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.The bold there is (obviously) my emphasis.
See, as I read that little piece of English I see that the government is allowed to do things to promote "our Posterity". And that means they can give special treatment to heterosexual couples - since that is where "our Posterity" comes from. Now that doesn't mean the government has to give any special treatment, but they could.
Let's assume for the moment that I have read that wrong, and that the government may not allow for such special treatment. Well then I have to ask, What stops the polygamists from being allowed to marry? I don't see anything in the Constitution allowing us to forbid that. What stops groups from being married? What stops an adult from marrying a child? A member of some other species? Even an inanimate object? Seriously, if the line can't be drawn between hetereosexual couples and homsexual couples, where can it be drawn, if anywhere - based on the Constitution? I honestly think that the polygamists have a better arguement (at least they produce "Posterity").
I guess I'm not really upset about the decision, if homosexual couples want to pay higher taxes and deal with the fallout of divorces, fine. But I do see a slippery slope looming before us. And that worries me.