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."
It all boils down to "sexual orientation" so if a man is sexually oriented towards a realitive, it's gotta be OK.
"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.Many people are sexually orientated to the same sex. And to children. And to animals.
It seems the court just decided that all of that is OK. After all sexual orientation is their guideline.
Great point. Judges, yet again, are the important issue in this presidential election.
Either of these two Democrats would appoint Leftist Radicals to the Supreme Court. They would change our nation beyond recognition, and it would likely never recover from the damage.
McCain has said that he would appoint conservative justices. Even if he did not, he would not appoint the kind of Radicals that Obama or Hillary would appoint!
We must elect McCain.
We cannot allow our country to fall into the clutches of one of these Democrats--especially if there is a Democrat majority in Congress.
No, but there is a strong grass roots effort to have the California Constitution changed to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
That’s good to hear.
CA is hurting financially. Those pensions mentioned in my #13 post will sting tax payers big time.
The only thing more full of crap than a cow that really, really needs to use the outhouse is AP (American Pravda).
Ballot initiatives are a retarded, anti-republican way of governing. Remember that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
There is no “innate wisdom” among the masses of people. Courts exist to interpret and uphold the rule of law, and (ideally) are the best venue for protection of individual liberties against the power of both the state and “the people.”
2008... California OKs homosexual marriage.
2010... California OKs marriage between siblings
2015... California OKs marriage between parents and their children
2020... California OKs marriage between adults and minor children
2030... California OKs marriage between people and their pets. Polygamy among heterosexuals still illegal.
your example isn’t appropriate, since those are already Constitutional rights. Gay “marriage” is not.
Dems in CA, while in majority of office, are walking a very tight line with their own supporters. Even their own "peeps" are talking "anarchy" and throw the "bums out". This recent ruling is akin to a "party pep-talk". And, Edwards, running his Presidential campaign staked his position to "gay marriage". Edwards is in the news and now so is gay marriage. Anyway,
Like Obama's interjection of himself into a situation not directly involving himself was a publicity stunt, this recent ruling is also a publicity stunt.
It's effectively putting liberals on notice of a domestic (gay marriage) and international ("talking to terrorists") "awakening" or "quickening" of strategic plans of the Dem political party.
IOW, my fellow conservatives.. put your flak gear on, incoming.
actually to correct you
most people never wanted slavery even in the south back then
sorry to be pedantic but facts are facts
the libs don’t like facts but hey
we fought the war of northern aggression, war of states etc because of trade, taxes and state rights
the libs of course think the war was about slavery even ignoring lincolns address stating he had no desire to free slaves nor did he think he had the power to do so.
of course the famous speech cam elater when the war in the north was very unpopular and the north had been taking a beating
that is when lincoln freed slaves of course only slaves ion the south
mmmmmmmm
correct i lived up there at the time
Romney enacted an old law stating that marriages form other states will not be recognised in Mass, I don’;t think Ca has that law
Here in Florida we got the amendment on the ballot
my feelings too
Really do not agree with Mc Cain onlots of issues but I cannot sit and let a dem in knowing they will make it even worse for us
especially Barack
hey after all it’s about civil rights for them
ARF
I want to see now polygamists use the same argument and they can for every argument the homo’s use can be used for others
not hurting anyone
love each other
not your business in the bedroom
etc
etc every argument can be used and I hope now every other weirdo from every nook and cranny comes out with law suits
just watch the homo’s stay silent on civil rights
NO fooling. Homosexuals and the ACLU will BOTH say that is different. Marriage should be between TWO PEOPLE in love, not more than two BLAH BLAH BLAH.
I hate modern life.
They will argue that socialism is not communism--that Marxism has been maligned--that it will work and is benevolent.
What they will avoid disclosing is that it requires a brutal tyranny, either oligarchy or dictatorship but a totalitarian government, for its establishment and implementation--that it inevitably destroys the economy and ultimately the society--and that it has killed well over 100,000,000 people, far more than Naziism has killed.
The Democrat Party is the Political Machine of the American Left. The Left seeks to limit liberty, including freedom of speech, and to establish a totalitarian Marxist regime in America.
This is exactly what these people will do if they can manage to seize control of the U.S. Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court. They will change the United States beyond recognition. This is what they mean when they call for change!
No matter what McCain is, he is not one of these, and, at the moment, he is out best hope.
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.