It's interesting what the California Supreme Court thought its mission was in In re Marriage Cases.
"The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution."
"It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution."
The reason the Court said that this was its "mission" will become abundantly clear.
". . . the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage. . . retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples . . . because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples . . . retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects 'second-class citizens' who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples."
"Likely"? "Probably"? "May well have"? By all means, let's do away with the traditional definition of marriage because a tiny segment of the population likely, probably, may well have some problems with it.
But wait, there's more.
". . . the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage -- cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest . . . Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest."
Did you catch that, there is no compelling state interest in retaining the traditional definition of marriage, the cornerstone of civilized society. No compelling state interest . . . unbelievable!
Footnote 52 begins on page 79 of the opinion. Up until that time, we are told no less than 78 times that there is a "constitutional right to marry" or some version thereof, i.e., right to marry, fundamental constitutional right to marry, fundamental right to marry. However, Footnote 52 shows that that is quite untrue.
"We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation's culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry . . . Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment . . . Thus our conclusion that it is improper to interpret the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives." (Emphasis added)
And there you have it. The California Supreme Court just reaffirmed that the state has a right to maintain legal prohibitions against certain types of marriage. So why did this one court strike down this one provision? Because it felt like it.
"There can be no question but that, in recent decades, there has been a fundamental and dramatic transformation in this state's understanding and legal treatment of gay individuals and gay couples."
The California Supreme Court decided that since homosexuality was so popular, so widespread, so very "today", it was going to inflict its moral vision on the populace, much like the US Supreme Court did with Roe v. Wade. This opinion has nothing to do with the law nor the California Constitution and everything to do with four supremely misguided judges, in a bid for immortality, sticking their finger in the eye of We the People.
This was evident not just by the overall holding of the case, but by some of the comments therein.
In 1949, the California Supreme Court said: "the Legislature has full control of the subject of marriage and may fix the conditions under which the marital state may be created or terminated."
To which the court has just stated, Not if we don't like, they don't.
In the March 2000 primary, Proposition 22, which said: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." was passed by some 60% of voters. Since that was an initiative statute, Article II, Section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution provides that it could not "be modified by the Legislature without submitting the proposed modification to a vote of the people."
We can modify it, though. Ha ha!
". . . we agree with the Attorney General and the Governor that the separation-of-powers doctrine precludes a court from 'redefining' marriage . . . we disagree with the Attorney General and the Governor to the extent they suggest that the traditional or long-standing nature of the current statutory definition of marriage exempts the statutory provisions embodying that definition from the constraints imposed by the California Constitution, or that the separation-of-powers doctrine precludes a court from determining that constitutional question. On the contrary, under 'the constitutional theory of "checks and balances" that the separation-of-powers doctrine is intended to serve', a court has an obligation to enforce the limitations that the California Constitution imposes upon legislative measures, and a court would shirk the responsibility it owes to each member of the public were it to consider such statutory provisions to be insulated from judicial review."
In other words, we're going to do whatever we want whenever we want and wrap ourselves in the Constitution while we're doing it. Get over it.
Although it would be hard to narrow down the number of times the court was arrogant and condescending to We the People, this just might be the best example of its contempt for us and our provincial ways:
". . . that the electorate voted in favor of retaining the traditional definition of marriage does not exempt the statutory limitation from constitutional review, nor does it demonstrate the the voter's objective represents a constitutionally compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection principles."
In other words, They the Court didn't find a compelling state interest in what We the People voted for and wanted.
It is fully possible that in a few years, a more enlightened supreme court will write a footnote in an opinion stating: "Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against polygamy is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction incest because of its potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment."
And a few years after that, "Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against incest is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction . . ." What?
In saying: "Accordingly, we conclude that the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage."
The "mission" of the court now becomes clear. The court did not declare that gay marriage is now legal in California. It declared that gay marriage has always been legal, it just needed to tweak the definition.
The opinion in this case, and all of the arrogant rot contained therein, would have to rise several levels before it would even qualify for being beneath contempt.