State Supreme Court Ruling Declares Ban Unconstitutional
By: CNNMay 15, 2008
Copyright current.com
The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
In a 4-3, 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
"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," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
The ruling takes affect in 30 days.
Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, filed a lawsuit saying they were victims of unlawful discrimination. A lower court ruled San Francisco acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The ruling surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being conservative. Six of its seven judges are Republican appointees.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he is "profoundly grateful" for the decision and for the court's "eloquence" in its delivery.
"After four long years, we're very, very gratified," he said.
Shannon Minter, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the case, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called the ruling "a moment of pure happiness and joy for so many families in California."
"California sets the tone, and this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he said.
Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, issued a statement saying, "Today's ruling affirms that committed couples, gay and straight, should not be denied the duties, obligations and protections of marriage. ... This decision is a vital affirmation to countless California couples -- straight and gay -- who want to make and have made a lifelong commitment to take care of and be responsible for each other."
Groups opposing same-sex marriage also reacted strongly to the ruling.
"The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.
"So-called 'same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable."
The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment.
"The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people," Barber said.
A constitutional amendment initiative specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot. The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This is the final say," he said.
In a dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to the voters.
In 2004, San Francisco officials allowed gay couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.
"We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to," Lyon said at the time.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom called the ruling a victory not just for the city "but for literally millions of people. ... What the court did is simply affirm their lives."
CNN's Ted Rowlands reported that "huge cheers" went up in San Francisco when the ruling was announced.
In California, a 2000 voter referendum banned same-sex marriage, but state lawmakers have made two efforts to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills.
"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. "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."
Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriages in 2004, and gay couples need not be state residents there to wed.
New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut permit civil unions, and California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights, as do some other countries. Check the law in different states »
"It's a throwaway line, but I think it's true: As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation," Newsom said. "And I don't think people should be paranoid about that. ... Look what happened in Massachusetts a number of years ago. Massachusetts is doing just fine. The state is doing wonderfully."
The state law in question in the case, which consolidated six cases, was the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22. Oral arguments in March lasted more than three hours.
"There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," the ruling said.
"Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of Section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."
Newsom compared the ruling to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia case overturning that state's ban on interracial marriage.
"This is about civil marriage. This is about fundamental rights," he said.
The ruling may make the same-sex marriage issue more important in November elections.
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain supports "traditional" marriage but opposes a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying individual states should decide the issue. He also backs some legal benefits for same-sex couples.
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton both oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. They also oppose a constitutional ban.
This article first appeared on CNN.com. Please visit CNN to read the original article. Content Copyrighted by CNN
Don't you think the people in San Francisco are making a stand like Rosa Parks? Don't you think they have been fighting their battles on a day to day basis? During slavery there were people who felt it was wrong and helped people escape. Mayor Newsom lives in a city with a large GLBT population. He felt they should get married and gave them a chance. Maybe in your analogy of slave to servant we call it something other than marriage.
I think that it isn't about us pushing gay on to everyone, it's about money. We want our partners to get our pensions, our 401k's, death benefits, social security and the tax breaks if you got kids.
You don't "fix" the problem... You make it so it's not a problem in the first place. The African-American equality plight was more grand and painful than any other we have ever encountered as Americans. They weren't awarded any rights, and even when they were "given" certain "unalienable rights", they were handed in a way that mocked an entire government's rudimentary system of founding and operation. It wasn't until the twentieth century that they were even allowed to marry interracially under lawful guise. The governing bodies concerning this country should have learned better in the meantime- but sadly, they haven't.
Ignorance is what cripples a society. Without the fundamental enlightenment of common sense, people's actions are based on the fairytales of religion and a pointless search of a utopian society- not by what works best for everyone in the picture. It's sad that books written thousands of years ago are the template for how we judge fairness and equality. But the irony comes not in teaching others about oneself, but rather, in teaching and learning for yourself, and letting those around learn from you. For example, once the gateway of knowledge was opened for the blacks, they immediately took upon it as power for themselves. Power not for the collective, but rather for each individual. Once they proved they were undobtedly equal, then they took the next real step: action.
In a system such as ours, rights and freedoms aren't handed over on merit- they have to be earned. But being in a capitolist society, you earn things by seizing them and making them yours. It's also funy how that also earns you respect. African-Americans took what was rightfully theirs. From Rosa Parks' symbolic stubborn bravery to Frederick Douglass' reform, they fought for themselves- and more people caught on and started to do the same. To all those oppsed, they were swept away in a deluge of what became commonplace: a war that was being won by self-awareness coupled with intelligence. The fight was long, bloody, and not without many respected casualties- but they won their fight. Even with some resentment and even some lingering racism- they still can claim a major victory, and those side-effects are to be expected in societal battles.
Can we expect the same outcome should we win? Yes. But the whole point is that we have to fight to get there. We've only just started. Sure, the gay lifestyle and gay culture has been more accepted in recent times, but so was emancipation in the 1860's, but it took more than another century to get all just desserts. Just as how it's okay for every hag to have their fag today, it was still okay for plantation owners to still have their servants (clever of the name change from "slave" to "servant" to make it government compliant). What we're attempting is a change in the states of people's minds- what we're fighting for is for them to see the real us. A teacher, a police officer, a president... they just happen to be gay/black/hispanic/woman- that's the state of mind we're fighting for. When we get everyone to get over the notion that homosexual(ity) is something people ARE, and not something people DO, we will have our just desserts. We will have our rights.
So, until then... look, listen, and learn. Fight for yourself first and foremost. You know how the old addage goes, "A war can only be won by its battles." The battles aren't group issues like gay marriage and adoptive rights, the battles are us- living as free as we can and want to be. The only was possible to win any of those said battles is to be informed and wise, looking at past actions to determine a future course of action. History is chaotic, but there's one thing it definitely does: It repeats itself like clockwork.
The sooner we can win our battles, the sooner we can hopefully win the war in a minimal timeframe, and we can all enjoy life on the other side of the fence together, not as one, but as individuals who happen to be (fill in the blank).
If we are indeed being naive and turning a blind eye, how do we fix the problem?
I am going to be writing an article on gay marriage for a publication. I am curious to know how many other gays feel like Seth and why? Seth can I quote you?
The feelings expressed weren't towards gay marriage, but rather the community's naive outlook on things, and their willingness to take this latest California Supreme Court ruling as a positive sign, and not as a political Republican election vote-getting machine. This was done for attention and votes in November; and while gays and lesbians turn a blind eye, the voting public will strike it down, because we have let down some of our defenses. This perfectly mirrors the illegal overthrow of the Hawai'ian Kingdom in 1893- the biggest historic rope-a-dope in recent times, and assuredly not the last. My message was: The American government is slippery. Proceed with utmost caution.
Again, yet another "member" of the "gay community" doing what they do best. "Stop being so negative"? Um, last I checked I had a valid OPINION.
As far as the whole thing where you're fighting the good fight, and I'm reaping the rewards? You can kiss my non-collective ass, you clone. I'm an individual, the greatest fight I can and ever will fight is the fight to be an individual. I was never a member of the gay commuinty, and I never will be. I am an individual with a voice all my own, I speak for no one other than me; and guss what? I only HAPPEN to be gay. That's just how the dice fell. I have never in my life been proud to be GAY, and never have; I have always been proud of the fact that I'm ME, and I will continue to do so.
If you want to play the Blame Game, I have more ammunition than you can imagine. It is people lke YOU who self-destruct the community from all angles, and it is YOU who cannot see it as such. You take one instance and turn it into a lightning rod, for your own whims, not seeing that when someone is beaten for being gay, black, handicapped, and/or a woman; it is turly only they who feel the pain; and for a group (such as yours) to come forward and lay an undeserved claim to their suffering, you basically take their dignity, spit and their face, and carry their torch away from them.
Also, what I "think [I] know" is based on more than two centuries of politics and precedence. No, I don't have a crystal ball, but I do have the ability to read history books, and base proper projections based on such. What matters in the American Government, is not, nor will it EVER be based on matters of the heart, or how much someone wishes for it... What matters is what actually matters. False hope is for for the uneducated, and heeding warning signs is for those with both lobes intact. Let's see where you fall... Oops, by opening your mouth- I guess you've already shown us your true and remedial colors.
It's people like Seth who self destruct the gay community from the inside. Stop being so negative. You don't know that if it goes to a vote it won't pass in California, you just think you know. Some of us will keep fighting the fight while people like you reap the rewards.
I do apologize if you are a lawyer or a legislature maybe a state senator or state representative?
You may know your law but you don't know the will or hearts of people who want to see change Have you needed to protect your self or someone you loved so much and had spent years building a life together that you would go to any legal extreme to make sure that your life partner would be protected in case of illness or the death of the other?
To not have it ALL taken away by greedy or hateful family members and others who refuse to respect a committed Gay relationship the way they would a straight one! All because our country refuses to respect our rights as a couple! I had to spend Thousands of dollars in Texas with legal papers and wills trusts guardianships for both of us just to make sure we were protected in every way by other laws when all it should take is a marriage certificate and a will! Which we had certificate from a church and the state of Texas but a court would NOT recognize it! I WILL take credit for making marriage the thing to do if you love someone and are willing to commit themselves to each other regardless if it is legally recognized by anyone! I don't just talk the talk I walk the walk! And no the sky is not falling it's only a thin atmosphere and without it we would all be dead! We can chat more later on this topic!
Now I need to go because my loving partner is worried I'm catching a cough and wants to care for me in sickness as he does in health!
PEACE
EtheDJ & KtheEditor
Make sure that you know what you are talking about. Don't make ignorant statements to someone who knows how legislature works. Just because Arnie won't personally support a measure, he knows that the state congress will certainly put a measure up, and then the California voting public will inevitably strike it down- because that's was the precedence of the population has shown, and the GOP doesn't want to give the Dems any more ammunition come November... That is why Arnie is keeping his mouth shut. California has the most votes, and it would be an election-losing mistake.
And FYI, the California Supreme Court is not, I repeat, NOT the last word. So, it is NOT a win by any definition of the word. As for your plan... Nevada is a red state. That will NEVER happen. Some people say "Never say 'never'." I'm not one of them: NEVER.
I just chalk this up to one more ignorant homosexualist (I made this word up myself), and his fleeting, and ridiculous clinging onto a hope that he sees will be a deluge of change. Yet, in reality it's just a technicality that will be resolved come the November ballot.
Also, the gay community is testifying that marriage is an individual choice of love and devotion, yet here you are concocting a group assault, to have your will done. No wonder the covservative right sees the gay movement as a movement... I would be terrified too, seeing a congregation of rainbow bumper sticker-flaunting pride queens flocking about.
Stop, look, listen, and learn before opening your mouth, and stop taking credit for making marriage the "thing" to do. This is the kind of thinking that perpetuates not having the rights that I agree that everyone is entitled to. Ignorance is a deal breaker.
So, I suggest that before the Chicken Littles of the America run rampant and start shouting, "The Sky is falling!", that they first learn what a sky is, and how it works.
Having been married before marriage was the thing in the LGBT community! We again have come a long way baby! First I need to correct Seth on the overturn or any ballot measure. The Govenator has stated publicly that he vill NOT support any measure or ballot and that the state Supreme court of California IS the last word! So It IS a win for US! So saith the Gov. Now here is the Challenge posed to us here in Nevada! We can go to CA. get married like my partner of 6 years and I are going to THEN return to Nevada and start the legal process for convincing this state to recognize the CA. certificate! NOT by a vote but by court presiding to recogiize the CA state LAW! It may take some time but if enough people do this and the ACLU will represent us (not HRC there a joke) it will sooner or later have to be recognized! Patience and perseverance will in the long run win out over ignorance and denial! Just you wait and see!
EtheDJ & KtheEditor
There's no reason to get all hyped up over it... It will surely get struck down in November when voters vote against it on the ballot it is sure to be on. This surprise in the gay community just shows how overly-optimistic the gay community can be when they don't fully understand how the branches of government work. The Supreme Court ruled so that the public is forced to vote, thereby accomplishing a more solid ban on gay marriage that no court could overturn. Conservative America: 1 Homosexuals: STILL zero.