In re Marriage Cases

After quickly viewing the case on overturning California's ban on same-sex marriage, I came across this passage:

" ... 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" (9-10).

Am I reading this right? Sexual orientation in the state of California is now a protected classification? The California State Supreme Court adopted strict scrutiny in its approach? It's taken me a couple of days for this to sink in but this is HUGE!!! By the way, my attention was putting on the final touches to my dissertation for the past several days. Anyways ... In a rational basis approach, the plaintiffs assume the responsibility to demonstrate to the courts that whatever law that was passed or a state action was undertaken was unconstitutional. However, strict scrutiny, which is historically applied to race, gender, and religion, assumes that the laws and actions of the state are unconstitutional and that the state has the burden of proof to demonstrate it has a compelling interest to regulate. So strict scrutiny shifts the focus of the case and its analytical approach on the government's purpose than the actual majoritarian interests of the people. This decision ROCKS!!!

It made me wonder about the upcoming heterosexual marriage only amendment vote in California's constitution this November. This vote is not only going to be about prohibiting same-sex marriage, but also about adopting a strict scrutiny standard for sexual orientation in the state of California. Holy crap this is amazing!!!