So goes California

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

So says the preamble to California state constitution. Today their Supreme Court not only ruled that gays can marry, but by overturning the 1977 law that defined marriage as between one man and one woman they also seemed to affirm the right for polygamists, cats, dogs, chimps, or common house flies to tie the knot as well:

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

I'm no lawyer so hopefully this will be cleared up without having to pore through 172 pages. I'm still trying to read Feith's book and remain awake.

Perhaps the irony of ironies here is the man who once disparaged others by calling them 'girly men' will formally oppose a state amendment to the constitution to stop this reversal. The governator also took no action to stop SB777, a law which made it off limits for educators to refer to mom and dad in the classroom lest they offend childrens of lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Perhaps Arnold should reconsider his opposition to amending the constitution--that old preamble seems a little outdated for such an enlightened bunch.

In all seriousness, this has always been a tough issue from a legal standpoint, mainly because the founders never foresaw the problem. My sense is that marriage was set up more as an institution for the raising of children, which if done well benefits all of society, including gays with no children. That's not to say gays cannot raise good kids but they certainly can't produce them naturally and it's inarguable that a child is better off with a mom and dad if all other things are equal. Society's condoning of gay marriage is basically tantamount to saying that it doesn't matter how children are raised or by whom, and from that aspect I'm opposed.

But hey, my opinion is insignificant compared to the men running for president who can produce real change we can depend on. Obama's website seems somewhat ambiguous as to whether he's in favor of actual gay marriage while McCain's position seems fairly straightforward. Both will soon be wiggling around in the hot lights trying to parse an answer to this question, which if nothing else might be fun to watch.