0
   

California Supreme Court Strikes Down Same Sex Marriage Ban

 
 
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 11:10 am
Breaking! Wow!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,826 • Replies: 25
No top replies

 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 11:23 am
Yes, wow.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 03:38 pm
I got my first proposal...l from a cashier at the Rainbow Grocery Co-op. I assume she was kidding.

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/05/16/ba-298x232-samesex16castro47kr.jpg


Story


(05-15) 12:38 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days.

"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," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote in the majority opinion.

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage," George said.

In addition, he said, the current state law, enacted in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in 2000, discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation - discrimination that the court, for the first time, put in the same legal category as racial or gender bias.

Massachusetts is the only other state whose high court has ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Federal law denies federal benefits, such as joint income tax filing and Social Security survivors' rights, to same-sex couples who can legally marry in their states, and allows other states to deny recognition to those marriages.

Today's ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall, where nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings were performed in 2004 before the state high court put a halt to the marriages while challenges to the California law worked their way through the courts. The decision today has no effect on those annulments.

Outside the city clerk's office, three opposite-sex couples were waiting at 10 a.m. for marriage certificates. City officials had prepared for a possible rush on certificates by same-sex couples, but hadn't yet changed the forms that ask couples to fill out the name of the "bride" and "groom."

City officials say they'll probably be unable to marry the same-sex couples for another 30 days when the decision fully goes into effect. But they're making appointments for those weddings now.

"We've waited over 21 years for this day, but today I can finally say I will be able to marry John, the man that I love," Stuart Gaffney, whose marriage to John Lewis was one of those annulled by the court in its 2004 ruling, said at a San Francisco news conference with his lawyers and other plaintiffs. "Today is the happiest and most romantic day of our lives."

The celebration could turn out to be short-lived, however. The court's decision could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.

If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today's ruling. The initiative does not say whether it would apply retroactively to annul marriages performed before November, an omission that would wind up before the courts.

Liberty Counsel, which represented the group Campaign for California Families before the court in arguing for the state law, denounced the ruling and said it would ask the justices to stay its effect until after the November election.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 03:47 pm
Great news!

A bit concerned about election-year reverberations as in 2004. At least Obama's not from CA.
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 04:22 pm
Yay! Maybe this will help me convince my best friend and her girlfriend to move back to CA--I miss her! Sad

sozobe wrote:
A bit concerned about election-year reverberations as in 2004.


That was Mr C's thought too....I was hoping he was wrong, but I already heard Fox News making noises along those lines this morning. Uh oh.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 May, 2008 04:23 pm
Not I. It doesn't matter what they do this year, they are still going to get shellacked.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:32 pm
Cafferty asked the question how would the Marriage equality issue affect the presidential election, the respondents could be summed up in two ways, no one cares or that **** ain't flying any more. $4 gas, foreclosures, a war with no end...who gives a ****?
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:40 pm
http://www.notesfromhollywood.com/images/AtSFPrideParadeAndFestival010.JPG
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 05:06 pm
Its to bad that gay marriage supports can't win in the court of public opinion. Why do they always need to turn to the courts and the courts in turn make law instead upholding the law.

My guess is that the election results will overturn the courts in this case.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 07:12 pm
While the official position is that this gay marriage law doesn't impact on the rights of heterosexual marriages performed in California, isn't that also based on the opinion of heterosexual couples? Meaning, will there be any heterosexual couples that want to get married with a license for "heterosexual couples only"? And, what if some religions take a similar view? Would California then lose a percentage of the marriages of heterosexual couples?
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 09:20 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Its to bad that gay marriage supports can't win in the court of public opinion. Why do they always need to turn to the courts and the courts in turn make law instead upholding the law.


There's a lot of research in the field of psychology that shows that in order to change the public's opinion in areas of prejudice, legislation has to lead the way; then public opinion follows suit. Interracial marriage is an example of this. Public opinion was strongly against it; it was only after the laws were changed that the populace overcame its racist aversion to interracial couples... Sometimes it's healthy for society if the laws change in favor of tolerance before popular opinion does.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 09:34 pm
Some day you guys might even get to be as hip as Canada, but I'm not going to hold my breath (and I did not inhale in any case).


Quote:
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the approval of the Civil Marriage Act. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas. [1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative motion to examine the matter again. This was the third vote supporting same-sex marriage taken by three Parliaments under three Prime Ministers in three different years


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 10:38 pm
cyphercat wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Its to bad that gay marriage supports can't win in the court of public opinion. Why do they always need to turn to the courts and the courts in turn make law instead upholding the law.


There's a lot of research in the field of psychology that shows that in order to change the public's opinion in areas of prejudice, legislation has to lead the way; then public opinion follows suit. Interracial marriage is an example of this. Public opinion was strongly against it; it was only after the laws were changed that the populace overcame its racist aversion to interracial couples... Sometimes it's healthy for society if the laws change in favor of tolerance before popular opinion does.


The California Supreme Court does not legislate. It struck down recent legislation that expressed the will of Californians to limit state sanctioned marriages to those between one man and one woman.

There will be an initiative on the ballot in November which will seek to amend the California constitution so that state sanctioned marriages will be limited to those between one man and one woman. In all likelihood, it will pass, and then the four judges who produced this decision will have to sit on their hands.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 10:39 pm
Chumly wrote:
Some day you guys might even get to be as hip as Canada, but I'm not going to hold my breath (and I did not inhale in any case).


Quote:
On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the approval of the Civil Marriage Act. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas. [1] Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative motion to examine the matter again. This was the third vote supporting same-sex marriage taken by three Parliaments under three Prime Ministers in three different years


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada


Yes, that should be our national imperative: To become as hip as Canada.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 10:47 pm
Far be it from me to suppress your enthusiasm, particularly your penchant for logical fallacies.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 08:58 am
cyphercat wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Its to bad that gay marriage supports can't win in the court of public opinion. Why do they always need to turn to the courts and the courts in turn make law instead upholding the law.


There's a lot of research in the field of psychology that shows that in order to change the public's opinion in areas of prejudice, legislation has to lead the way; then public opinion follows suit. Interracial marriage is an example of this. Public opinion was strongly against it; it was only after the laws were changed that the populace overcame its racist aversion to interracial couples... Sometimes it's healthy for society if the laws change in favor of tolerance before popular opinion does.


Popular opinion is changing, regardless. In the West and East, the majority of people favor marriage equality.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 10:42 am
cyphercat wrote:

There's a lot of research in the field of psychology that shows that in order to change the public's opinion in areas of prejudice, legislation has to lead the way; then public opinion follows suit. Interracial marriage is an example of this. Public opinion was strongly against it; it was only after the laws were changed that the populace overcame its racist aversion to interracial couples... Sometimes it's healthy for society if the laws change in favor of tolerance before popular opinion does.


I believe the above is specious; interracial marriage and gay marriage cannot be compared. In interracial marriage, children are born that are just humans of mixed parentage. When were two individuals of the same gender able to copulate that resulted in a pregnancy with a child born?

In other words, whether one refers to God's plan, or nature's plan, interracial marriages are sanctioned, since children can then be the "natural" result (disregarding any historical prejudices of society). However, in gay marriages, children are not the "natural result," but an "engineered result" through artificial insemination (two lesbians), or proxy preganancies (two males), or adoption.

As I see it, gay marriage is only a facsimile of heterosexual marriages. It may seem like the real thing to some, but some people also have to squint, to tell a photocopy from an original.

What people don't talk about, when I hear gay marriage discussed, is that while the two gay parents are living out of the closet, any children birthed, or adopted, may one day have to put his personal family life in the closet to live his/her life in certain areas of the country, or in some job situations. So, it seems that all the "rights" are going to the gay parents, but no one is concerned about the "rights" of any children raised in these marriages.

Babe Ruth was raised in a Catholic orphanage, I thought. I guess that left him with an enjoyment for living. Could he have been as open with his childhood, if he had two parents of the same gender?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 11:08 am
Foofie, you're against infertile heterosexual people getting married, right?

(The California Supreme Court made explicit parallels between interracial marriages and same-sex marriages.)
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 12:25 pm
sozobe wrote:
Foofie, you're against infertile heterosexual people getting married, right?

(The California Supreme Court made explicit parallels between interracial marriages and same-sex marriages.)


Don't make extrapolations on what I said. I'm only trying to be intellectually honest, in that a marriage between heterosexuals is what nature/God designed for the procreation of the species. Therefore, a homosexual "marriage" is a facsimile thereof.

And, telling me what the California Supreme Court used in the way of analogy is their choice of logic. I have mine.

And, I personally would rather be in an old fashioned Catholic orphanage, if I were an orphan or abandoned child, rather than having two parents of the same sex. That's just my personal preference. The nuns could have given me a good education and taught me right from wrong.

And, to answer your question above, no, I am not against infertile heterosexuals getting married. Why should I be? And, if they chose to adopt, or utilize a proxy womb, or artificial insemination, at least any children would not wonder whether to put his/her personal family history in the proverbial closet when they found themselves amongst conservative people.
0 Replies
 
cyphercat
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 May, 2008 03:09 pm
Foofie wrote:

I'm only trying to be intellectually honest, in that a marriage between heterosexuals is what nature/God designed for the procreation of the species.


Marriage isn't designed by nature at all, obviously. Perhaps you're thinking of sex, that's a naturally-occurring thing; laws aren't...(and of course, homosexual behavior occurs naturally among animals all the time, so that's more "natural" than marriage, if you really want to base things on what happens in nature...Smile)

Quote:
The nuns could have given me a good education and taught me right from wrong.


And gay people, of course, can't provide children with good educations or knowledge of right and wrong... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » California Supreme Court Strikes Down Same Sex Marriage Ban
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 06:48:56