Court upholds California gay marriage ban

San Jose Mercury News ^ | 5 October 2006

[CounterCounterCulture]

The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled today that California's marriage laws banning same-sex marriage do not violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

[Smogger]

Booya!

[rightinthemiddle]

Wow. Good news.

[CounterCounterCulture]

another news link

Details still pending...

[domenad]

In San Francisco no less. Weird.

[My2Cents]

Guess the poofers will appeal?

[dragonblustar]

[CounterCounterCulture]

Gay marriage dealt defeat in California

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
3 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - A state appeals court ruled Thursday that California's ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians, a critical defeat to a movement hungry for a win after high courts in New York and Washington state upheld similar bans.

In reversing the March 2005 ruling of a San Francisco trial judge, the 1st District Court of Appeal agreed with the state's attorney general, who argued that California's ban on same-sex marriage does not discriminate against gays and lesbians because of the state's strong domestic partner law.

Couples who register as domestic partners have the same rights as married spouses in California except the ability to file income taxes jointly.

The ruling does not guarantee, however, that same-sex couples will not ultimately be able to get married in California. Gay marriage advocates said beforehand that they would appeal to the state Supreme Court if the intermediate court did not decide in their favor.

[steveo]

Guess the poofers will appeal?

Only to each other... :p

[CounterCounterCulture]

link to #8

[longtermmemmory]

New Jersey still has not issue their opinion.


They are holding it back just like massachusetts. (probably for some civil rights holiday like Mass.)

[Zeppelin]

theyll appeal and appeal and appeal until they get their way.

the Left doesnt accept defeat in court...only on the battlefield.

[John Jorsett]

Don't worry, the 9th will rule the opposite. And, if experience serves, be overturned (again) by the Supreme Court.

[My2Cents]

the Left doesnt accept defeat in court...only on the battlefield.

If they want to switch to live ammo, I'm game.

[ElkGroveDan]

Thank you for posting! I spent a year of my life working to pass that.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

What about Congressmen?

[CounterCounterCulture]

Your efforts are much appreciated. :-)

[finnman69]

NO POOFTERS!

[Dilbert San Diego]

This specific case deals with California state law on marriage only, not federal law. So the 9th circuit shouldn't get involved, yet anyway.

[JDoutrider]

This day just keeps getting better!

[SmithL]

``The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions,'' the court wrote. ``That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat.''

BINGO

[Dilbert San Diego]

So, based on court cases this year, the mainstream of legal thought on marriage is that marriage doesn't violate anyone's civil rights, and, that any changes in marriage should be decided in the legislature or the people. One of the judges in New York's case specifically said that there's a "hardship" of gays with children, and invited the legislature to address it.

So maybe some judges get the message that the legislatures or the people should decide what marriage and family are and how to define them.

[SIDENET]

To any gay-activist trolls reading this tread:

[CounterCounterCulture]

Look at this tripe...

Justice J. Anthony Kline dissented from his colleagues, calling the decision a ``backward step'' that ``demeans the institution of marriage and diminishes the humanity of the gay men and lesbians who wish to marry a loved one of their choice.''

[stm]

A recent outbreak of sanity rocked San Francisco today.....film at 11. Back to you Bob

[My2Cents]

Good summation. And this "judicial trend", if real, is indeed significant.

[CounterCounterCulture]

Expect tonight's televised news broadcasts featuring the usual stock footage of homos "marrying" and kissing and such. Think I'll skip turning on the boob-tube tonight. :-)

[ElkGroveDan]

Don't worry, the 9th will rule the opposite. And, if experience serves, be overturned (again) by the Supreme Court

No the ninth won't be part of it. This next goes to the California Supreme Court and any appeal after that goes to USSC.

[Zeppelin]

If they want to switch to live ammo, I'm game.

That'd be interesting...with no guns, they'd have to throw the shells at us!

[pollywog]

WOO HOOOooooooooo !!! Thank you God.

[lowbridge]

The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled today that California's marriage laws banning same-sex marriage do not violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians

Thre big earthquake is here!

[sappy]

GAYvin Newsome will not doubt try and thwart the will of the people again.

[calcowgirl]

The opinion (PDF--128 pages. 0.4MB)

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A110449.PDF

[Jay777]

Spreading the news at Stop The ACLU

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

That's hardly a victory. It is not a violation BECAUSE they already have the benefits. In other words, it's the same thing people. You've already got gay marriage.

[My2Cents]

with no guns, they'd have to throw the shells at us!

And they all throw like girls.

[Prost1]

Boy, is this a queer decision coming from california!

[gidget7]

True, probably, but even though the MA court ruled it unconstitutional, it was Romney who ordered that licenses be issued, and he didn't have to. The courts to not make law.

[Dilbert San Diego]

But it's a victory in that there is no federal recognition of homosexual couples, yet anyway. If they eventually get marriage rights in Calif., in a status called marriage, that would pave the way for a lawsuit in federal court.

But if the legal status is not called marriage, this distinction alone may keep it out of federal court.

Regardless of today's decision, this will be in courts for the next 10 years anyway. Some issues never get settled and this is one of them.

[calcowgirl]

Not that surprising, really.

California is neither as permanently Democratic nor as liberal as political folklore sometimes has it.

In our presumably immutable Democratic era, California voters have recalled a Democratic governor; passed a ballot measure prohibiting same-sex marriage; overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to reduce the two-thirds legislative margin necessary to pass the budget or raise taxes; rejected an initiative to require that the third strike in the state's "three-strikes" sentencing law be a serious felony; and passed an initiative designed to eliminate bilingual education. Proposition 13, of course, remains sacrosanct.

Source.

[jocko12]

Did not Arine just sign a part of the queer bill.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Thank God.

[calcowgirl]

Did not Arine just sign a part of the queer bill.

Yep. He signed lots and lots of bills:

2005

2006

[calcowgirl]

Ping

[brivette]

Does this mean I can't marry my sofa?

[CounterCounterCulture]

Sorry, not at this time. But check your domestic partner benefits package to see if they're progressive enough to pay to reupholster your sofa.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I do not believe the state court can rule on federal recognition. So all the state court can do is apply things to the state. The lawsuits are already taking place in federal courts.

Domestic Partnerships equal Civil Unions equal marriages. Same thing. Those who think one is fine and the other is not are deceiving themselves and/or others.

[brivette]

It's a good thing my carpet matches the drapes...

[dfwddr]

Domestic Partnerships equal Civil Unions equal marriages. Same thing. Those who think one is fine and the other is not are deceiving themselves and/or others.

This is the important fact here.

[newzjunkey]

This is a San Francisco-based court.

No need to amend the U.S. Constitution.