As XRLQ pointed out yesterday, language in a recent California ruling affirming the status of Domestic Partnerships may deal a setback to efforts to provide equal marriage rights through the legislative process. The San Francisco Chronicle reports toda…

I keep pointing out that no matter what the state calls it the laws prior to these amendments concerned “civil unions”. You can get “married” with or without the involvement of the State. FORMALLY married, in the religion of your choice.

It’s just that the State (at least here in L’il Rhody) provides for a State license for cohabitation, and which provides certain services (eg a formalized of estate distribution in the absence of a will) for license holders. And SOME religious leaders (as I recall what I read of the law about a year ago, only about six reigions are so recognized) may in turn be licensed to sign for the State, in lieu of a judge or other government official.

Yeah, the legislators who wrote the laws before roughly the mid-1990′s, and dictionary authors ditto, only thought of hetero unions. But then, the legislature of Ohio in the late nineteenth century passed a law that pi was exactly 3. And the Oxford dictionary tentatively traces the expletive “bloody” to an Elizabethan (I, not II) bunch of ruffians, without mentioning that it had been in common usage for centuries before.

As to when I have ever accepted a judge’s ruling on a law at face value, frankly, that’s what I usually do. I don’t usually blog about cases like that because I generally have nothing to add. In this case I did, both because I myself had previously taken a skeptical view of the validity of California’s domestic partner law, and because at least one prominent blogger has been insisting that 2+2=3. So that three appellate judges have unanimously said that “nope, 2 plus 2 really does equal 4,” I thought it worthwhile to point that out.

As to the “separate but equal” challenge, rotsa ruck. Rather than overplay your hand, you’d do well to accept this gift horse from the Legislature rather than look it in the mouth, and end up losing everything to a new DOMA amendment more in line with the one that passed in Kansas yesterday.

“308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.

308.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

Now I am no lawyer, but I would read that to clearly imply that Sec. 308.5 amends Sec. 308, especially when Sec. 301 gives a definition of the parties who can get married in California legally.

HOWEVER, it does establish the basis for a “Separate But Equal does not mean Equal” challenge…

Also, marriage is what most people really care about anyway. So I think it was probably a tactical choice to keep Prop. 22 short, simple, and sweet. And say it in as least offensive way as possible, but also get that initiative level of protection. (Legislature can’t change without going back to people, but they really should’ve gotten a constitutional amendment, but who knew, 2000 seems so quaint by now…Judges weren’t quite the monarchs they have recently decided to be).

In defense of the other side…although weakly Prop. 22 was one of the first DOMA-type iniatives and perhaps they didn’t think about it, but would’ve put that in there. BUT, Of course, nothing stops them from attempting a referendum (well now it’s too late), or at least a new initiative campaign.