Posted on 05/15/2008 10:18:34 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
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.
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.
Do you know which Republican appointed these judges?
Concurring opinions (in support of gay marriage) in red
Dissenting opinions in green
Homosexuals need to keep in mind, however, that the good news of the gospel is not about how God despises same-sex sexual relationships. In fact, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 indicates that certain members of that church had been slaves to such relationships but had been cleansed in Jesus' name. So these former homosexuals had evidently repented and accepted God's grace to straighten their lives out.
John 3:16
Revelation 3:20
tell it to [Bishop Vickie Gene] Robinson’s ex, too.
Thank you
The bottom line is that Californians can choose not to be slaves to their own constitution or the judges who interpret it.
Were Californians misguided to belief that voting on a proposition would be the best way to reflect majority will concerning one man, one woman-only marriage when they should have directed their efforts to having their constitution amended?
I was wondering if you think people in the US are free to practice idolatry?
Queers and pedophiles rejoice. Got a kid to donate??
Just to clarify my previous post, the initiative is a Constitutional Amendment.
I don’t defend Arnold on his views, but his appointee Corrigan voted against homosexual marriage
Are any of the Supreme Court judges who supported this up for a vote this year? If so, this is an opportunity to clean up the court.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Hurrah!
California's voting majority may have learned something from the New York Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage as it concerns New York's constitution after all.
They get appointed and then stand for re-election every 12 years unless they get recalled first, e.g.; Rose Bird, a Moonbeam appointee.
-
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/about.htm
One Chief Justice and six associate justices are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The appointments are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.
To be considered for appointment, a person must be an attorney admitted to practice in California or have served as a judge of a court of record in this state for 10 years immediately preceding appointment (Cal. Const., art VI, § 10).
from another post on the thread,
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2016404/posts?page=54#54
Chin would look to be the only one standing for re-election and he voted
No.. sooo..
Ronald M. George, (since 1991), Chief Justice (elevated in 1996)
Marvin R. Baxter, (since 1991), Associate Justice
Ming W. Chin, (since 1996), Associate Justice
Carol A. Corrigan, (since 2006), Associate Justice
Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice
Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice
Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice
The Court currently has six Republicans appointees (George, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan) and one Democrat (Moreno).
That ought to bring out the family value people.
McCain may just have a chance of winning if that issue is on the ballot the same time as the general election.
I’m surprised you’re so impressed with those who dwell in Congress. I find it hard to find one that’s worth a bucket of warm spit, much less one that I want to elect as President.
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.