Supreme Court(CA) overturns Gay Marriage Ban

[Pint0 Xtreme]

LINK

Calif. Supreme Court To Rule Thursday On Gay Marriage
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: May 14, 2008 - 3:00 pm ET

(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court announced on Wednesday it will issue its ruling tomorrow on whether same-sex couples can marry in the state.

The judgment is expected at 10:00 am PT, and LGBT groups throughout the state are making plans to be in San Francisco for the decision.

The case before the state Supreme Court dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally.

The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom's actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.

Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.

In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling.

In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

Kramer stayed his ruling while the state appealed.

In October, 2006, the California Court of Appeal in a split decision overturned Kramer's ruling and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

However the Court decides, the ruling will make history and have enormous impact on the movement for gay and lesbian civil rights, as well as the lives of many thousands of same-sex couples and their families across the country.

The ruling also will set the stage for a battle to protect the California Constitution from an anti-gay constitutional amendment initiative likely to appear on the November ballot.

A coalition of conservative groups, under the banner 'Protect Marriage' , have submitted more than required 694,354 signatures to qualify. The signatures are being verified.

Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that if an initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for the November ballot, he's prepared to fight it.

He made the commitment at a convention of Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

Schwarzenegger has previously vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage. Both times Schwarzenegger said that the courts or the people through a plebiscite should decide the issue.

I've made a 20 dollar wager with my friend regarding the outcome of this ruling. In the unfortunate case that they rule against same-sex marriage, I'll at least have 20 extra bucks as my consolation prize.

[Kanastrous]

Well, I'm betting in favor of it.

Call me a cockeyed optimist.

[Terralthra]

Well, I'm betting in favor of it.

Call me a cockeyed optimist.

If you have eyes for cock, surely this is the ruling on which you should bet.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

It would be nice if California would live up to its reputation of being whacked out liberal and recklessly progressive instead of the reality of being a large conservative backwater with a few liberal leaning areas. And the saying does go, as California goes, so goes the nation. Which, means, presumably, also cuts in education for the rest of the country, but that's another topic.

Nevertheless, the article does make it sound like there's a good chance of a pro-gay ruling.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Well, I'm betting in favor of it.

Call me a cockeyed optimist.

If you have eyes for cock, surely this is the ruling on which you should bet.

I believe that cock-eyed would imply that rather he has cocks for eyes, rather than the latter. So, where's Flagg?

[Adrian Laguna]

Actually, it means has eyes like a cock.

Anyway, seeing as California is a pretty liberal place, there's a good chance they'll rule in favor. San Fransisco will probably be filled with much rejoicing and celebration if it does.

[Kanastrous]

Well, I'm betting in favor of it.

Call me a cockeyed optimist.

If you have eyes for cock, surely this is the ruling on which you should bet.

Unless I were a lesbian, who might have hopes for the ruling, too.

[Terralthra]

I believe that cock-eyed would imply that rather he has cocks for eyes, rather than the latter. So, where's Flagg?

Actually, it means has eyes like a cock.

Of course it doesn't mean that he has eyes for cock. That was a joke.

Unless I were a lesbian, who might have hopes for the ruling, too.

True enough, I did assume you were male. My apologies for the assumption.

[Kanastrous]

True enough, I did assume you were male. My apologies for the assumption.

I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Don't you oppress me.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

BREAKING NEWS: California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

[Ender]

linka

Calif. Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS) ― The California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision Thursday that legalized same-sex marriage in the state.

The high court announced the opinion on its Web site in the morning.

Gay-rights organizations like Equality California called it a historical decision by the court.

The court ruled the state's one man-one woman marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples.

Justices ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples, the city of San Francisco and two gay rights advocacy groups who filed suits that were consolidated.

With Thursday's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, California becomes the second state after Massachusetts where gays and lesbians can legally wed.

The court's seven justices had appeared closely divided on the issue during the three-hour hearing on March 4.

The legal proceedings were set in motion after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples in early 2004. The licenses were later ruled invalid by a judge.

Same-sex marriage supporters had argued that a right to same-sex marriage is provided by the state constitutional guarantees of equal protection, privacy and a fundamental right to marry.

State attorneys defending California laws had claimed that opposite-sex marriage was deeply rooted in tradition and the state's domestic partnership system provided nearly equal rights -- an argument a majority of the court rejected.

Meanwhile, a voter initiative that would make opposite-sex marriage part of the California Constitution, rather than a law, may be on the statewide ballot in November.

A constitutional amendment measure providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California has been submitted, but is in the process of having signatures verified, according to the office of Secretary of State Debra Bowen.

[Kanastrous]

Outstanding.

Although I guess we can now look forward to conservs going for a state constitutional amendment.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Could've posted that in the thread I made yesterday.

[JME2]

Wasn't too worried about this, but then you never know. Glad to see it overturned.

[The Spartan]

Well that's two.

I suspect there will be an earthquake any day now as god rains his righteous wrath down upon the heathen evil doers.

Kansas will never see it coming...

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Outstanding.

Although I guess we can now look forward to conservs going for a state constitutional amendment.

They've claimed to have the signatures to push for a vote so far. Fortunately, the governator has openly voiced against it and he has a pretty good track record on successfully campaigning for his opinions I think.

[Rawtooth]

Link

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
10:11 AM PDT, May 15, 2008
» Discuss Article SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court's ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, and the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco's highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.

Several states have since passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Today, 27 states have such amendments.

After a month of jubilant same-sex weddings here, the California Supreme Court intervened and ordered the city to stop issuing licenses to gay couples. The court later invalidated the documents and declined to address the constitutionality of a state ban on same-sex marriage until lower courts acted first.

Today's ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures. It came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.

Gay rights lawyers won an early victory in the dispute when a San Francisco trial judge decided in 2005 that gays should be permitted to wed. An appeals court later overturned that decision on a 2-1 vote, ruling that only the Legislature or the voters could change California's traditional definition of marriage.

Lawyers in favor of same-sex marriage argued that the law discriminated on the basis of both gender and sexual orientation.

Opponents countered that the ban was gender-neutral, barring both women and men from marrying members of their own sex. They also argued that people could be treated differently because of their sexual orientation if there was a rational basis for it.

In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Proposition 22, which said that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

Since the ballot measure, California has passed one of the strongest domestic partnership laws in the country, giving registered same-sex couples most of the rights of married people.

The plan by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, City Atty. Dennis Herrera and gay rights lawyers to challenge state marriage laws by wedding same-sex couples was carefully considered.

City officials chose the first couples to wed, hoping their long unions and sympathetic stories would put a face on same-sex marriage that courts would find difficult to reject. The city also decided to begin the weddings on a day when courts were closed to deprive opponents of quick legal intervention.

One of the first couples to wed, the lead plaintiffs in San Francisco's lawsuit challenging marriage laws, has since separated and is no longer part of the case.

The long parade of weddings fours years ago -- at City Hall and across the street from the California Supreme Court -- provided a dramatic backdrop for the gay rights debate.

Young gay fathers with babies strapped to their chests, lesbian couples with children and elderly gay couples who had been together for decades celebrated their unions while passersby honked their horns and friends threw rice and popped champagne corks. Protesters also showed up, carrying signs and denouncing the newlyweds.

Before today's ruling, gay rights lawyers predicted that a victory in the California Supreme Court would help them defeat the proposed constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, which the lawyers expect to qualify for the November ballot. A loss in the court would help the backers of the measure, they have said.

The California Supreme Court has six Republican appointees and one Democrat. Scholars have described the court under the leadership of Chief Justice Ronald M. George as cautious and moderately conservative.

Just figured I'd toss up the LA Times article for the record. This is awesome that it was overturned.

[Rahvin]

Saw it on Yahoo first:

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.
ADVERTISEMENT

The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

The cases before the California court 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.

Gay marriage is legal in CA!

[Kanastrous]

I hope this is the news Bush wakes up to.

Assuming they carry it on the noon newscast.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

More importantly it's an enormously populous state; expect to see the war over this in California in the next several months incredible. I wouldn't be surprised if they have some of the highest levels of voter turnout in the country for November over that constitutional amendment.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Most of these judges were Republican appointees, too, which is amusing.

[Darth Lucifer]

OH NOES!! They're L3G1ZL4T1NG FR0M T3H B3NCH!!

I figured I'd jump in and say it before someone from FOX responds this way.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Most of these judges were Republican appointees, too, which is amusing.

I've noticed that effect as well. Conservative pols, once appointed to judicial office, tend to get decidedly libertarian. Here's hoping it happens big in the SCOTUS with the Bush appointees (Alito notwithstanding, but you never know).

[Gil Hamilton]

Oh, great! Now nothing will stop those queers from building a giant satellite to shoot rainbows directly into the asses of God Fearing Christian Children! It's over, man! Game over!


Seriously, this is very good news. Good on California.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Clearly, this is the work of activist judges!