The hated Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower, arguably a republican although in this day and age I doubt he could even get his party’s nomination.  And as it turns out, the majority on the California Supreme Court that decided equal rights under law means equal, not separate but equal, were all appointed by republicans too.  The Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who wrote the opinion, was appointed by Pete Wilson no less.  But even Pete Wilson is old school, compared to the Bush republicans.  Think, Samuel Alito.  When you can put a man on the court who thinks the warrantless strip searching of 10 year old girls isn’t any big deal, let alone poses a constitutional issue, you can safely know the gutter Eisenhower would have recognized, though not as American, has ascended to power.

I am elated on the one hand, and terrified on the other.  There is a referendum coming.  Californians have not won this yet.  Millions will be spent to put the knife back in the hearts of same sex couples in the Golden State.  Only two things give me slender hope.  The right wing there has become more insane since Wilson.  And Schwarzenegger says he will oppose it.  If he lives up to his word, we could yet win this now.  If not, there may well be more bitter years of fighting to come.  I am not dancing yet.

This, as Annie Wagner over at SLOG points out, is the nugget of gold in this decision…

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. In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential “rational basis” standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard of review — “strict scrutiny” — is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called “suspect classification” or impinges upon a fundamental right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment, and (2) the differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.

Suspect class…Strict Scrutiny…  This is what we, gay Americans, have needed for so very long.  Without this, the statehouses and congress will continue to stack the deck against us, whenever the hate vote demands it.