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.
Simple,
Gay marriage won’t hurt any traditional marriages. Nobody is going to say “Wait, I can marry somebody who’s the same sex as me! So long honey, have fun with the kids...”
Legalizing polygamy can hurt traditional marriage, if a husband or a wife would want to take another spouse and the current spouse refuses, the requesting spouse can file for divorce with cause and get a favorable alimony, custody and division of assets ruling.
This won't sit well with most voters, and it's a minefield for Obama.
IF the destruction of traditional marriage weren’t the ultimate goal, you might have a sliver of a point.
The institution of marriage must be protected because it is the basis of our traditional culture, it is the best environment to raise children whether the couple chooses to or not,
and this is also why the left MUST destroy it. Families are too much of an “independent unit” to allow to exist when the goal is control.
Let's bring it down to numbers -
how does MR and MRS (male and female He made them) like having
FOUR UNELECTED TYRANTS that are unaccountable to the electorate
deciding for the whole country that your definition of marriage is bigotted?
You know, that would make a catchy campaign commercial!
McCain would condemn it as too harsh, partisan, and intolerant.
article update
The GUb surrenders here too.. last paragraph.
what a skinky individual, all huff and no bite.. and now not even a huff..
—
California’s top court overturns gay marriage ban
LISA LEFF, Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO - 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 striking down the ban.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.
Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, “Pali, will you marry me?”
“This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us,” Rizzo said. “This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity.”
In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.
“I’ve been waiting for this all my life,” he said. “This is a life-affirming moment.”
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.
“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 challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine 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 signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court’s decision.
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.
But, “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,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court’s majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would’ve granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
tell that to McGreevy.
Technically, California Supreme Court justices are accountable to the electorate--certainly more so than the USSC. At the next general election after they are appointed to the court, they have to stand for retention, and again every twelve years after that. In 1986, three justices (most famously Rose Bird) got the boot.
Isn’t it time to start talking about a third Constitutional Convention? Since we don’t follow the one we have let’s draft a new one and let each state decide if we want to stay. There is nothing, NOTHING, that California offers that Texas couldn’t do without.
Not computers, cars, shipping, avocados, or HIV.
Of course he won't. He's wanted this all along. No problem... he's been defeated before--he can be defeated again.
Having Jerry Brown arguing on behalf of Prop 22 Californians was a joke. Arnold did a lot to get Brown elected.
I cannot wait until we are rid of this Trojan Horse.
Could you give a brief summary of why this is destroying marriage. Ever since Mass. started this stuff, my marriage hasn’t been effected one bit and I don’t see how it ever will.
I agree, just as it did four years ago when Bush was re-elected.
HA! Good one.
But if Gay Marriage was accepted in the first place - he never would have married a woman.
But there’s a joke going around, “All Gays want to do is go to church, get married and raise children - they want to become republicans.”
To me this opens the door to say polygamy is legal and so is first cousin marriages and father to daughter and anything goes.
But, “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,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court’s majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
—
Mr. George, if a man and a man or a woman and a woman could create new life without outside intervention or tools to assist,, I might buy that argument. The curse of believing in a Judeo-Christion ethic is religion gets mixed in it, and these days, there are no shortage of those who avoid or make it conform to their needs and use the courts to do so. This decision only further undercuts tarditional marriage and families.
A majority of the state’s voters has already spoken before, and yet , you play the game of the left. You render a vessel intended for justice useless and nothing more that a wart and to be ignored, even when it is so prominent, imo.
We will vote again, and you will hopefully have retired and moved on, it’s obvious your attempt to be fair falls far short of any intent you might claim to be just that.
Questions? When did your dog agree to the engagement? And can you refer us to a good canine hotel?
Yes, and perhaps boost Republican and conservative Independent turnout just enough to give McCain the edge in CA in November, causing him to back in to a Presidential win...
Wouldn’t that be a kick in the Liberal pants?
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.