In California, gay people are now considered a "suspect class"...

[AntiFascist]

(I've always felt suspect :) )

This is a landmark decision, as part of the gay marriage ruling, and will become important in the Obama campaign as he continually includes the gay and lesbian community when spelling out various segments of society. This means, as I understand it, that there is now a basis for separating this community and offering it protection.

[AntiFascist]

1. This is HUGE people!!!

It means that gays and lesbians are now a legally recognized minority class.

[SoonerPride]

2. I agree. HUGH!!!1!!!!1!

[AntiFascist]

3. This was the point of contention with the more conservative judges...

3 of them dissented based on this point.

[slackmaster]

5. They have been in California for a long time

:shrug:

[AntiFascist]

8. Can you cite any legal decisions?

In 2006 the First District Court of Appeal said this in upholding the ban on gay marriage:

``We conclude California's historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class,"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/06/court_upholds_calif_ban_on_gay_marriage/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+National+News

[slackmaster]

11. Try today's California Supreme Court decision

:dunce:

I have had some training in our state employment laws. Discrimination against people based on sexual orientation is explicitly prohibited in the Labor Code. From an employer's perspective, even discussing it in a job interview is asking for a lawsuit.

[AntiFascist]

14. Listing sexual orientation as a characteristic not to be discriminated against...

is not the same as making it a "suspect class". My expert who has listened to 4 hours of hearing proceedings tells me that one of the Supremes made a point of stating that no court had previously ruled that sexual orientation is considered a suspect class.

[slackmaster]

16. IANAL

Thanks for the clue.

[myrna minx]

4. I am elated by this news.

:woohoo:

[WeDidIt]

6. I consider marriage to be a religious institution

REligiously speaking, I have no problem with two people of the same sex entering into sacred vows of marriage.

My problem is when the state steps into it. The state should be concerned only with the legal aspects of the civil union contract. Leave the definition of marriage up to each individual relgious institution or group and stay out of it.

[AntiFascist]

10. It is a matter of dignity, according to the CA Supreme Court...

any other classification would imply second-class status for gays and lesbians.

Also, registered domestic partners in CA do not have the same rights as married partners. We must constantly try to pass laws bringing it up to the same legal status.

[WeDidIt]

12. See. my plan is 100% fair

Any two people can enter into the civil union contract via the state. All such contracts are 100% identical in terms of legal benefits and obligations. Marriage does not even enter into it.

Marriage is the religious aspect of the union. That's up to each couples religious convictions.

[AntiFascist]

15. I would agree with you...

the problem is if you take away the term "marriage" from the law, then conservative groups would scream that the institution of marriage is being eroded. Also, the way this has evolved, we don't have civil unions in California.

[kentuck]

7. And it's not just a California issue..

it will reverberate across the nation. Good or bad depends on your perspective.

[WA98070]

9. This is NOT a PRIMARY issue!!!!

[AntiFascist]

13. The candidates may reaffirm that the decision should be left up to the States....

I suspect that both Obama and Hillary will likely agree on their positions, but I'm sure Obama is being asked for his opinion.