It’s moving, thanks.

Is it silly to say I got a little verklempt?

No appeal. The suspect classification, and entire decision, is based on the California constitution.

I don’t think that’s a good thing, in that it refers to it as a “constitutionally suspect basis”. If it hasn’t been previously established that the Californian constitution forbids discrimination on teh basis of sexual orientation to teh same extent as gender, religion or race, the decision might be vulnerable to attack on that basis.

Then again - in what forum will it be attacked? The Supreme Court?

I hadn’t seen that statement, I’d only known that when he vetoed the legislation he used a “let the court decide” sidestep. I was assuming he would do some sort of double backflip dodge and challenge this. That he does not, and that he is opposing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, makes supporting gay marriage in Cali both the right thing to do AND politically uncontroversial.

As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme6 that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment,

I think this may be the first court to establish sexual orientation as a suspect classification. That’s huge, at least in the California context. Even if a measure passes in the fall, this classification will make it much easier for California activists to challenge anti-gay state and local laws, policies, and regulations.

Holds his word how so exactly? Here’s the statement he released this morning:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”