All from the ruling overturning Proposition 8. Find it. Read it.

“Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

“That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, ‘as fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’ West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette, 319 116 1 US 624, 638 (1943).”

“Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage license is more than a license to have procreative sexual intercourse. ‘It would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.’”

“When the Supreme Court invalidated race restrictions in Loving, the definition of the right to marry did not change. Instead, the Court recognized that race restrictions, despite their historical prevalence, stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry.”

“The evidence did not show any historical purpose for excluding same-sex couples from marriage, as states have never required spouses to have an ability or willingness to procreate in order to marry. Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.”

I want to have a party, with cake and ice cream and champagne!