California Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

California Supreme Court Webpage ^ | May 15, 2008 | California Supreme Court

[NinoFan]

Opinion just released.

[dan1123]

the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest

Well, I should just call myself a doctor then, because it's just a traditional title right? And the court just ruled that "traditional and well-established definitions...cannot properly be viewed as compelling state interest".

[Tulane]

At least now it may go to the Supreme Court.
____________________

No chance.

[bvw]

IMO, the basic definition of key terms in law is a national issue, and suitable for hearing by the US Supreme Court. Those terms would include marriage, life, death, person, man and woman.

[NormsRevenge]

California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.”

—

Now Corrigan can marry her partner too.. what a deal!

Rome and Athens both had their days in the sun too,, and then the darkness.

[Regulator]

Oh goody. Does this mean that I can practice Polygamy now?

Why yes. And now you can marry the Sheep of your choice, because to prohibit such would of course be a violation of your right to Equal Protection of the Laws.

I'm not sure how the sheep will take all that, but hey...who cares? It's civil rights, right?

[j.havenfarm]

Um. Corrigan dissented.

[svcw]

I know how you feel.
Someone tell me something good, I am ready to eat chocolate cake.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The more pages, the further they must reach in order to justify their endorsement of a perversion of the system. I would not doubt that there is something in there about European law.

[Niteranger68]

There is no argument for gay marriage that does not equally support marriage between two people who are already related by blood. If you support marriage between two men, you support it between a man and his daughter. Period.

Prove me wrong.

[Enchante]

Depends upon what statutes and/or constitutional issues they are addressing - I haven't seen the opinion yet but this quotation suggests they are relying upon an interpretation of the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment (US Constitution), unless CA also has an equal protection clause that they are referring to??

"the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest."

[Anonymous Rex]

Good, something to galvanize both sides going into November.

Look for the resurgence in a call for an amendment to the U.S. consitution banning gay marriage.

If those in the GOP leadership have an ounce of brain between them they’ll use this opportunity to the fullest.

[for-q-clinton]

It can still go to the US Supreme Court. All you need is one couple in California t move to another State and then sue for their marriage to be recognized by the other state. Assuming that state rules against them...it can eventually go to the US Supreme Court. But the same applies for other gay marriage states.

[HoosierHawk]

"Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, 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, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. 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."

Sexual orientation - like a person's race or gender...(shakes head)

[CholeraJoe]

I’m going to marry my gun and take it everywhere I go. If I can take my wife to a school or courtroom, I oughta be able to take my gun since I’m married to her.

[OB1kNOb]

“If God doesn’t soon bring judgment upon America, He’ll have to go back and apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!” - Ruth Graham

[piperpilot]

I really feel that the country has gone in the sh*tter this week. Very, very dark days, indeed.

[LowTaxesEqualProsperity]

This country is finished.

[Brilliant]

“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 must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In
addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the
constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.”

[CholeraJoe]

Too many Mark Foleys, Larry Craigs, and Dick Cheney's in the GOP to do the right thing politically,

You forgot Lindsey Graham.

[DryFly]

It would be nice to be able to blame this on an extremely liberal court, but in truth the CA Supreme Court is actually very conservative nowadays.