<![CDATA[Getting My Legal Fix]]>Last week, when the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the ban on same-sex partner benefits, I was so tired from the end of term I didn’t have the energy to care much (and really, it wasn’t that unexpected). However, this Thursday brings happier news: the California Supreme Court has ruled their own state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The legal junkie in my is having fun perusing some of the coverage. I love it when people (most especially those I agree with!) get snarky in legalese:

Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause. . . the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes–the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage–cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.


Oh, and my favorite legal news story of the week* might be this one: NPR’s On the Media reported that Scott Bloch, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, whose office was raided this week by the FBI amid allegations of corruption, accused the Bush Administration of “being part of a gay rights conspiracy to persecute him.” Who knew?

(*via the blog Pandagon)

]]>