California's Top Court Overturns Same-Sex Marriage Ban Thursday , May 15, 2008 SAN FRANCISCO —
The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on gay marriage Thursday, calling such a prohibition unconstitutional and paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry. In the 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the majority that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage.
In striking down the ban, the court said, "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."
Outside the courthouse, celebrations erupted among gay marriage supporters.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody -- not just in the state of California, but throughout the country -- will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he will support the decision.
"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.
Democratic members on Capitol Hill congratulated the court on the decision.
"Massachusetts has recognized the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry since 2004 and our experience has refuted the critics. We only strengthen our society when we allow all our citizens to enter into a solemn commitment to share in lifes joys and difficulties," said Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy.
“Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. “I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment."
Last night on CNN, they were interviewing a mayor from California(I think his name was Newsom, I'm not sure) and his exact words were "As California goes, so does the country".
Calif. to face vote on gay marriage SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage will not be the last word. California voters will almost certainly hold a referendum on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in November, and for the first time anywhere in the U.S., the vote will have a direct and immediate effect on gay couples waiting to tie the knot. The amendment needs a simple majority to pass, and if the voters reject gay marriage, their decision will supersede the high court’s. There are signs the contest’s outcome will be close. It will certainly be costly — the two sides say they plan to spend at least $25 million combined on the campaign.
Here's the thing. They already had a referendum on this and put this into place. This is why this case went so high. Then, activist judges went against the previous vote, so they have to vote it in again? Ludicrous.
Gees...the homosexuals don't want to just live together any longer. They are fighting like hell to be able to be married legally.
While on the flip side of all of this, the heterosexuals have fought like to hell to not be married legally and just wanted to live together. Go figure!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Decision on gay marriage welcome, but will it help or hurt? E.J. Dionne is a nationally syndicated columnist. E.J. Dionne
WASHINGTON — Imagine what it would be like not to be able to marry the person with whom you want to spend the rest of your life. Then imagine how tens of thousands of gays and lesbians in California must have felt last week when the California Supreme Court declared that homosexuals have a right to marriage under the state’s Constitution. My visceral reaction to this decision, rendered by a moderately conservative court dominated by Republicans, was to share the joy of the gay and lesbian couples you saw celebrating on television. But my practical reaction was to wonder whether this decision would speed or slow our country’s steady change of heart on the matter of recognizing committed gay relationships. As it happens, I am one of the millions of Americans whose minds have changed on this issue. Like many of my fellow citizens, I was sympathetic to granting gay couples the rights of married people, but balked at applying the word “marriage” to their unions. “That word and the idea behind it,” I wrote 13 years ago, “carry philosophical and theological meanings that are getting increasingly muddled and could become more so if it were applied even more broadly.” Like a lot of people, I decided I was wrong. What moved me were the conservative arguments for gay marriage put forward by the writers Jonathan Rauch, Andrew Sullivan, and New York Times columnist David Brooks. They see society as having a powerful interest in building respect for long-term commitment and fidelity in sexual relationships and that gay marriage underscores how important commitment is. Prohibiting members of one part of our population from making a public and legal commitment to each other does not strengthen marriage; it weakens it. And, as a New York Court of Appeals judge cited by the California court majority noted, fundamental rights “cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.” If history and tradition had constrained us, equal rights for African-Americans would never have become law. But to find a constitutional right to gay marriage, the California majority chose to argue that the state’s very progressive law endorsing domestic partnerships for homosexuals — it grants all the rights of marriage except the name — was itself a form of discrimination. This is odd and potentially destructive. As Justice Carol Corrigan argued in her dissent, “to make its case for a constitutional violation, the majority distorts and diminishes the historic achievements” of the state’s Domestic Partnership Act. That’s true, and in many states, it will take years for a political and legal consensus in favor of gay marriage to develop. In the interim, civil unions or domestic partnerships are the best hope homosexuals in these states have for some form of legal recognition for their relationships. The danger is that foes of civil unions will use the court’s own logic to argue that such arrangements are not a political halfway house but lead inexorably to gay marriage. It would be unfortunate if California’s breakthrough were used to stall significant if more modest progress elsewhere. There is a complicated interaction between court decisions and the working of democratic politics. On the one hand, there are times when only the courts can vindicate the rights of minorities. On the other hand, rights are more firmly rooted when they are established or ratified by democratic majorities. In the case of gay marriage in California, a majority could still overturn this decision by amending the state Constitution to ban samesex marriage — and a proposition to this effect is likely to appear on this fall’s ballot. Corrigan stated flatly that she personally supports gay marriage but argued that in a democracy, “the people should be given a fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference.” She added: “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.” The good news from California is that the people will ultimately decide the question, and I hope that a reaction against “judicial activism” does not hamper the marriage equality movement. As for most other states, domestic partnerships and civil unions will come long before gay marriage does. Nothing the California court majority said should deter these states from recognizing that gays and lesbians, no less than heterosexuals, have a right to the community’s recognition of the seriousness of their commitments.
They see society as having a powerful interest in building respect for long-term commitment and fidelity in sexual relationships and that gay marriage underscores how important commitment is. Prohibiting members of one part of our population from making a public and legal commitment to each other does not strengthen marriage; it weakens it. And, as a New York Court of Appeals judge cited by the California court majority noted, fundamental rights “cannot be denied to particular groups on the ground that these groups have historically been denied those rights.” If history and tradition had constrained us, equal rights for African-Americans would never have become law.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha----go ahead make a commitment in public and the public will then rear up and publicly condemn you when you want a divorce for irreconcilable differences and you shall be 'marked' like in the days when divorce was taboo......... go ahead, have at it, and what was that?, be fruitful and multiply---ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.......................
it is ALL a moot point.......if gay marriages add credibility to commitment then I am James McGreevy during the day and Elliot Spitzers prostitute by night.....and when I'm on vacation they call me Liz Taylor.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Marriage license poses dilemma BY MICHAEL R. BLOOD The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES — You have to figure “bride” and “groom” are out. So, what will the California marriage license look like in the new era of same-sex marriages? Will it list “Partner A” and “Partner B”? “Intended No. 1” and “Intended No. 2”? Or will it contain just blank spaces for the betrothed? The court decision last week that legalized gay marriage in California has created a semantic puzzle with scant time to solve it. With the ruling tentatively set to take effect June 16, state bureaucrats must rapidly rewrite, print and distribute a marriage license application. The current one-page form uses “bride” and “groom” four times each, and also requires the signatures of an “unmarried man” and an “unmarried woman,” wording that is obviously out of step with the California Supreme Court ruling opening the way for gay marriages. Thousands of same-sex couples are expected to flock to the state next month to wed. But typically it takes the state months to churn out new forms. Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she is not particularly worried. “This is where you don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good,” she said. “If people can marry and those marriages are legally recognized in compliance with the court ruling … the t’s crossed and i’s dotted on the form are the least of our concerns.” The person with the final word is Mark Horton, director of the state Public Health Department, which oversees the Office of Vital Records. “It’s too early for us to give specifics,” said Linette Scott, a deputy director at the department. “We are going to be in compliance with the court order.” In Massachusetts, the only other state to legalize gay marriage, “bride” and “groom” were dropped from its marriage certificate in favor of “Party A” and “Party B.” Those individuals then check a box to indicate male or female. In Vermont, which issues certificates of civil union for gays, couples also are identified as “Party A” and “Party B.” Simply scratching out “bride” and “groom” on the current California form could be problematic. The form reads: “Make no erasures, whiteouts or other alterations.” Tom McClusky, a vice president at the conservative Family Research Council, said the state should maintain two marriage forms, one of which preserves “bride” and “groom.” “If the definition is seen to be so fluid, where do you stop?” he asked. “I can imagine the discussion in a couple of years of how many people should be included. Why is it wrong for two men and a woman to get married? I don’t want to see the top of THAT wedding cake.” The wording on the license is just one of many unanswered questions left in the wake of the ruling that struck down laws against gay marriage in the nation’s most populous state. There are questions about its effective date. And it could be a fleeting victory for gays, since religious and social conservatives hope to put a constitutional amendment on the state ballot in November that would undo the ruling.
Opponents of gay marriage make compelling arguments: Marriage has traditionally been between a woman and a man. State supreme courts that strike down gay-marriage bans, as in Massachusetts in 2004 and in California last week, are pre-empting lawmakers and the people they represent by imposing social policy. It’s through the legislative process that most states have approved of civil unions that grant gays and lesbians the same civil rights as heterosexuals. But under the U.S. Constitution, equal rights and equal protection are not matters of interpretation according to tradition, popular will or even pragmatic compromise. Equal rights means equal rights — not equal with caveats, not separately equal, not equal until deemed uncomfortably so. Equal protections apply to human beings regardless of creed, color or sex. The country learned to extend equal protections for all creeds and colors. It hasn’t yet learned to extend that protection to sex. exceptions in Massachusetts and California should be the rule. - The News-Journal, Daytona, Fla.
Logged
