We conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

Taken from PDF courtesy LA Times.

We went to the jeweler last night and I didn’t have to turn over my ring like I thought I would. They are going to write up a quote for me on how much a matching band will cost. They have to take an existing ring and etch it to match my engagement ring. The sales guy recommends that I eventually get the two rings, for lack of a better term, “fused” together. I haven’t decided what I want to do, but I’m leaning towards his recommendation. The reason he suggested I do this is because over time two rings rubbing against each other will wear them down. I suppose I’ll know more once I get the quote for the band.

UPDATE: As it turns out I can “tack” the rings together afterwards. Jewelry dealers are so strange. Each one of them has a different idea of how to sell a ring.

We went wedding band shopping over the weekend (as in rings, not music groups– we’re eloping, people), and in typical fashion I found that no rings fit with my ring. When it came down to it, I had to see if they could order a band from the company that made my engagement ring. I received a call on Monday that the company didn’t, but that the jeweler would make a ring for me that will match my engagement ring. How is that for service? And it’s going to be affordable, too.

As for Matt’s ring. He tried on a lot of them and ended up picking out one that had a matte stripe in the middle. We noticed that the non-matte part was kind of shiny in sort of an uber-flashy way, so I think we’ll revisit the ring situation when I drop off the engagement ring.

Oh yeah. They have to take my ring away so they can make me a band. So I’ll be without it for who knows how long and that will be sad. I think I have bad dreams when I’m not wearing it.

Oh the picture? That’s my dad’s trophy from winning the Oscar contest this year. Pretty snazzy, ain’t it? I came so close to winning, though, I think I at least own some of that Oscar. I’ll take the butt cheeks.

P.S. Photos are kind of a pain in Wordpress. Boo.