Posted on 05/15/2008 5:07:48 PM PDT by Utah Girl
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.
Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.
"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," the court wrote.
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.
"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.
The ruling likely won't impact Utah, where voters in 2004 approved a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and other domestic unions, said Monte Stewart, president of the Orem-based Marriage Law Foundation.
Stewart points out that the California ruling could be temporary. Voters in there are expected to consider a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in November.
"Historically, what happens in California reverberates strongly across the nation," he said. "In this case, the decision today will be short-lived. It will be corrected by a vote of the people on election day."
On the other hand, Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, who led the campaign against Utah's marriage amendment, says the California ruling is a "moral victory" but likely won't impact Utah directly.
"Utah has clearly stated, and I think wrongly stated, that marriage is between a man and woman and won't recognize a marriage from another state," he said. "I look forward to the day we can reverse that constitutional decision."
Why do we even bother having elections anymore?
Regarding the decision of California judges concerning gay marriage, given that the judges not only had Proposition 22 in their faces, but also that Californian’s will likely consider a one-man, one-woman marriage amendment to their constitution in November, the judges’ decision reeks of pro-gay, special-interest PC.
So, Utah has a state Constitution banning homosexual marriage; however we have a Federal law that says that any state recognized contract (ie marriage) must be recognized in all states. (ie. If I get married in Maine, I’m also legally married in any other state I visit).
So, if a gay couple is legally married in California; which law supersedes? The Utah State Constitution, or the Federal Law?
Does the ruling mean it is ok for a man to marry his adult son?
At one time in this country the majority of people wanted to continue with slavery, the government in an unpopular move abolished slavery.
At one time in America the majority people believed it was a high crime for a white woman to marry a black man and the government in an unpopular move expanded civil rights to include the right for people from different races to marry.
This too will pass, there will be no change to the Constitution the government will in the end expand marriage laws to include gays and once again be unpopular.
Once again, a group of black robed Kangaroos overrule the express will of the people.
Tyranny from the bench.
Not yet, but it's next. Lawsuits demanding the "right" to marry children, corpses, farm animals, and vegetables are probably already being filed...
The question of course is does this mean that the "Full Faith and Credit" clause in the Constitution applies to this or not. That will be what SCOTUS will have to eventually decide.
Probably.
Maybe the California SC will shortly look into legalizing homo sapiens - canine marriages.
Yes, at one time the people of the US appointed Congressmen, Senators and State Legislators to write amendments to the US Constitution which allowed the High Court to end slavery and mixed race marriage bans. Now rather than convince we the people to do that, certain people and judges choose to make an end run around the system and reshape the system to their will as they did for abortion. I just can not be happy about that for some reason...
The reason I ask is that in CA many retired civil servants earn a pension and when the person dies, the spouse gets a reduced pension until he or she dies. If a retired man divorces his wife and marries his son, that could add another 30 years of tax payers paying that pension. Two males can’t re-produce, so I can’t see why their “love” can be denied. The divorce and marriage could be a scam, but prove it.
Friggin liberal courts. Shame on them. Evil, filthy lovers of wickedness.
I would encourage leaving this state as soon as possible. They’ve already been pushing this crap in the public schools. It’s time to go before the big quake hits and sinks these dens of iniquity.
We lost our country when we allowed the government to take “We the People” and turn it into “We the black-robed, Leftist buffoons with a wall full of shiny, leather-bound, unused law books.”
Who would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would support homosexual marriage—Hillary? Obama? McCain? And whose appointees would not sanction same sex marriage?
Yes, I can see what you are saying but in the end will the method of how this social change came about really matter if the results will still be the same?
Take the case of abolition, the method really had no effect on the outcome, we still fought the Civil War because an unpopular move by the government will always be view as unpopular regardless how it is implemented.
I can’t see how marriage wont be expanded to include gays, I guess that is why I consider myself a strong fiscal conservative and let it leak on the social side, anyway it helps keeps me sane.
A dictatorship is fast approaching; thank Liberals for destroying our country.
Or referendums. The marriage proposition was overwhelmingly passed in California. It is the voice of the people, which I guess doesn’t matter, except if the voice of the people is politically correct.
Massachusetts had a law that allowed gay marriage, but for some reason that I can’t remember, other states didn’t have to recognize it. I need to do some research.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.