News-Record.com

The California Court of Appeal today upheld the state's definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The majority judges in the 2-1 decision pointedly did NOT legislate from the bench or override the law with their personal opinions.

"The Legislature and the voters of this state have determined that 'marriage' in California is an institution reserved for opposite-sex couples, and it makes no difference whether we agree with their reasoning," Presiding Justice William McGuiness wrote.

The majority rejected the notion that it's discriminatory to deny same-sex couples the right to join in a state-recognize marriage.

I found this a compelling and refreshing statement by the majority:

"Considering the importance of judicial restraint in this area, we must agree with appellants that, carefully described, the right at issue in these cases is the right to samesex marriage, not simply marriage. Just as the United States Supreme Court determined the right before it in Glucksberg was the right to assisted suicide, and not a more generic “right to die” or right to control the manner of one’s death (Washington v. Glucksberg, supra, 521 U.S. at pp. 722-723), we must be as precise as possible about the right being asserted by the parties before us. As discussed, the term “marriage” has traditionally
been understood to describe only opposite-sex unions. Respondents, who are as free as anyone to enter such opposite-sex marriages, clearly seek something different here."

That addresses the "equal protection" argument in a common-sense manner. Respondents are not denied an "equal" right to marry. What they want is a new and different right.

Significantly, the judges don't say respondents should not be granted this right. They say they have not been granted it by the legislature or the people. And that is the proper avenue for them to pursue.

The full opinion is here.

No doubt it will be appealed to the California Supreme Court.