State or Federal ruling?
I think we can recall Superior Court judges, just like Gray Davis. Let's go to it!
Says who? The illustrious Ninth Circuit?
How?
9th Circus?
Mar 14, 3:17 PM EST
Judge finds California's marriage law unconstitutional
By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that California can no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman, a legal milestone that if upheld on appeal would pave the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
In an opinion that had been awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the unconstitutional denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians and their right to marry.
Advertisement
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.
Kramer's decision came in a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn California's statutory ban on gay marriage. They were brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March, after the California Supreme Court halted the four-week marriage spree Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.
It could be months or years, however, before the state actually sanctions same-sex marriage, if it sanctions the unions at all. Two legal groups representing religious conservatives joined with California's attorney general in defending the existing laws.
Robert Tyler, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said the group would appeal Kramer's ruling.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.
He apparently based it on the State Constitution's equal protection clause, in an effort to avoid federal review.
Well, I certainly didnt expect Missouri or Georgia to be the first state to say this. LOL
This is terrible. But it's not suprising.
The world's just going to get worse and worse. We need to just win as many people to Christ as we can.
california is sooo wacked. its unconstitutional to prevent same sex marriage... but just try to light up a ciggerette on the beach... LOL!
Another ruling from the very unfunny clowns at the ninth circus
hell in a hand basket
How can something that is in the state constitution be ruled unconstitutional? Idiocy....
This will help to force the issue to the USSC or the states.
Lets see, the people "vote" and the courts over-rule our votes? Hmmmmmmmmm
Can you spell T-E-A P-A-R-T-Y?
Throw them overboard!!
|
||||||||
Did the Judge ALSO approve marriages of live people with dead people or marriages of human people with domestic animal people?
Did the judge impose a remedy or is that stayed pending appeal? Will there be gay marriages in Calif. until the Ca. supremes get around to hearing the case?
The argument over the denial of rights based on sex is an interesting one. In federal jurisprudence we never amended the constitution to provide "equal rights" regardless of sex (the ERA). This might be the only thing preventing same-sex marriage now.
Because it is clear that if a PERSON can marry a woman, the ERA would have prohibited discrimination based on the SEX of the person that could marry a woman.
Since we didn't pass the ERA, we are still able to discriminate between sexes.
Note that the current law does not in any way discriminate against gay and lesbian people. Every person, regardless of their sexual preferences, is free to marry any person of the opposite sex.
On the other hand, the constitution does not give anybody the constitutional right to marry the person they are attracted to (otherwise we would have to allow polygamy and half the population of this board would apparently be married to Ann Coulter :->).
