California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned: Major Updates

Gay Marriage Ban Overturned: "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," AP reports.

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 Background: 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.

Challenge For Gay Rights Advocates 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.

The Ruling: A key highlight from the California court's decision (pdf):

"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."

Schwarzenegger Vows To Uphold Ruling: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) issued a brief statement shortly after the court announced its decision Thursday. The governor said, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."

He also reiterated his previously stated opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative proposed for the November ballot. That initiative would write a ban on same-sex unions into California's constitution.

Last month, Schwarzenegger told a gathering of gay Republicans that he would fight the initiative.

Pelosi Hails Decision: A statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco:

I welcome the California Supreme Court's historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California's citizens and families, which today's decision recognizes.

I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court's decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution.

Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride.

Comments

[rextrek]

10:15 AM on 05/18/2008

You would think these so-called " religious Folk" would be upset about....oh, I don't know.....$3 Billion a week going to WAR to KILL people...Hunger in America and Around the world, 47+ Million Americans WITHOUT Healthcare...the economy, Gas Prices...the environment...you know, the Things that REALLY Effect society as a whole? Nahhh - they're too busy worrying about 2 consenting,committed adults loving each other....PRIORITIES?

[TheBlackCat]

11:07 PM on 05/17/2008

Found this article written by a Buddhist Monk I found very good, will throw up an excerpt:


As for the more general issue involved, Buddhist ethics (at least in the Theravada or southern school in which I am ordained) does not really address homosexuality. For monks, the ethical position is clear. Any kind of sexual activity, with any sort of partner, is explicitly forbidden. For the lay Buddhist, sexual ethics is laid out in the Third Precept which calls for "abstaining from sexual misconduct."

In the only place where the Buddha defines sexual misconduct he is speaking to a (presumably heterosexual) man, so the definition is couched in terms appropriate to that perspective. The lay man is told to abstain from sex with "unsuitable partners" defined as girls under age, women betrothed or married and women who have taken vows of religious celibacy.


Another consideration is that the Buddha often spoke about the spiritual dangers of unrestrained sensuality. This would mean, for instance, that promiscuity of any type is spiritually harmful. The implication in sexual matters would be that celibacy is the highest state, with monogamy a good situation for most people. Since gay people wanting to marry would presumably be monogamous, this should be seen as a positive development.

I respect that some religions have strong prohibitions against certain practices but I can't see the sense or justice in making such prohibitions general law. It's as if the Orthodox Jews were lobbying to ban eating of bacon.

[TheBlackCat]

10:42 PM on 05/17/2008

I'm an Obama supporter, but his civil union as opposed to gay marriage stance is extremely disappointing. He SAYS his religious tradition is what influences him...but when HIS parents married it was a common religious notion that blacks and whites were created differently because they weren't supposed to mix. I'm not suggesting that religious traditions are a bad thing generally speaking, but to use that as the ONLY reason not to do something just doesn't cut it.

There are issues like abortion and the death penalty which have religion as A mitigating factor but not THE ONLY factor. Arguments can be made against them which have nothing to do with religious beliefs, there are secular moral or legal positions for why abortion or the death penalty should be abolished. Therefor it makes sense for issues like these to be debated in the political sphere of America.

However, when it comes to gay marriage, the ONLY reason I have ever heard offered for why it should be banned is religious in nature. It's a SIn; GOD made a man and a woman and that's that. But we do not live in a Middle Eastern country where what some believe to be God's law is enforced. We live in a society where church and state are separated, this is one of our nation's founding principles. Therefor, a law (such as a marriage ban) which is ONLY predicated on a religious notion has no place in our society.

[ChicagoBob]

12:10 AM on 05/17/2008

!

It's about citizenship.

Even residency.

Even passing through, as in visiting.

EVERYBODY deserves to have the SAME RIGHTS.

It's about law, not religion.

Good for the California Supreme Court.

!

[randyjet]

10:25 PM on 05/16/2008

Judicial activism of either the left or the right is BAD! People forget that the courts were judicial activists for most of our history, only on the conservative side. We got segregation because the Supreme Court twisted the law to suit their prejudices to circumvent the clear intent of the 14th Amendment. To overturn that distorted ruling, even though it was clear black letter law, Warren thought that to overturn the precedent he HAD to have a UNANIMOUS vote. The stupidity of the CA court is such that it not only voided past customs and law, went against the will of the people, with only a narrow split decision. THAT is incredible and without legal merit. To make up law as the court did in its own opinion is wrong. They observed that since the views have somehow been determined to have changed, that now gays are a protected class. They could not cite any law or legal precedent which is the usual method. It is only a vague assertion on their part. THAT is not doing their job. It is NOT their job to make new laws as they did in this case.

[NoOneSpecial]

11:57 PM on 05/16/2008

So you're saying that unless the court overturns or re-interprets a law with a unanimous or near-unanimous majority -- and only then with the backing of a majority of the public's opinion -- it's without legal merit?

Boy, the public school system really is a mess these days.

What are they teaching in US Government social studies anyway? Obviously not the way the judiciary actually works.

[randyjet]

01:47 AM on 05/17/2008

NO The fact that it had only one vote majority simply means that it is a very weak legal opinion which can be overturned if one justice loses the next election which is coming up.. It does indicate that the legal reasoning behind it is rather weak. It does not mean it does not have legal force. So we can have the fun of going back and forth, on and off which is the problem with such narrowly decided opinions. THAT is why such activism is WRONG! That is also why Warren was NOT engaging in such activism in his tenure and court because all of the controversial decisions were done with near unanimous votes. That showed the legal solidity of those opinions. There would be no change in opinion if one, two, three, four, five justices were to leave the court. THAT is solid legal work and opinion.

[ChicagoBob]

12:13 AM on 05/17/2008

Since when is providing equal protection under the law activism?

[bayguy13]

07:30 PM on 05/16/2008

When San Francisco was actually doing civil wedding, a woman was protesting outside city hall saying that gay marriage would lead to people marrying horses, cows, etc. Now that the court has overturned the ban, I would not be least bit supprised if one of those crazies actually tries to marry their horse/cow/dog just to enflame the fundie crowd.

[Crozier]

07:51 PM on 05/16/2008

Do fundies have birth certificates issued by states for human beings for "dumb animals and beasts"??? Does your state ask if you are related by consanguinity or by marriage? Forget it...the dumbing down of America has not yet reached beyond WV....or has it reached this blog via trolls and theocons?

[Orlando]

06:26 PM on 05/16/2008

Freedom rings again in America!!!

Americans have the right of free will and should be free from all government intervention, ESPECIALLY when it comes to your own personal life.

I think that the people that oppose gay marriage must on some deep level, have repressed feelings that they are covering up and are ashamed of.

I am a straight man who does not need a law to tell me who I am attracted to.

We should defend all of our brothers and sisters who can find love in this world.

Hoorah for the judicial system!!!

[TheBlackCat]

05:08 PM on 05/16/2008

So I looked up state by state divorce rates:

5 lowest divorce rates:
1.Massachusetts
2. Connecticut
3. New Jersey
4. Rhode Island
5. New York

Five HIGHEST divorce rates:
1.Nevada
2. Arkansas
3. Oklahoma
4. Tennessee
5. Wyoming

Um, why is it again that conservatives/ the Bible Belt claim to be the party/region of family values and protecting marriage? And if liberals are so immoral about values and has policies that threaten marraige, why are the five states with the lowest divorce rates liberal, Northern states?

I'm not saying this just to tick people off, I really want to know what other posters (both conservative and liberal) think about this.

[Crozier]

07:54 PM on 05/16/2008

It is because the theocons are hypocrites....and their TV evangelists know it.....firsthand....

[Staash]

02:07 PM on 05/17/2008

"And if liberals are so immoral about values and has policies that threaten marraige, why are the five states with the lowest divorce rates liberal, Northern states?"

Maybe because marriage is a prerequisite for divorce?

[j.gold]

03:06 PM on 05/16/2008

Take the government out of marriage now!

One law for everyone!

The government should not be in the marriage business at all. If you want to get married go to your church, synagogue, temple, mosque, priestess, etc and abide by your own religious rules. If you want a legal binding contract that shares your rights with another person(s), no matter who that other person(s) is then you should have the right to do so. To enter in this kind of contract, like any contract you must be of consenting age.

The government should have one set of rules for everyone and must not discriminate against people. And the government should not be used to enforce one groups "morals" amongt consenting adults.

Get the government out of our marriages and out of our bedrooms.

[stkarnick]

04:48 PM on 05/16/2008

Although government recognition of same-sex marriages is typically presented as a liberating idea, it's actually government imposition, by force, of a small group's sexual values on a reluctant and indeed strongly resistant population. People are perfectly free to have a church marriage or other ceremony vowing fidelity to each other. Same-sex marriage laws, by contrast, are intended to force other people to recognize such marriages, which is a government imposition, not freedom. See http://stkarnick.com/blog2/2008/05/california_courts_samesex_marr.html. S. T. Karnick

[klmebane]

08:49 PM on 05/16/2008

ok, how about this... you guys can keep your straight marriage, and all of us gay citizens can just stop paying taxes for a government that won't guarantee us equality under the law. the population can be resistant if they want to, but they aren't the ones who can't marry the person they love. we aren't trying to force people to recognize same sex marriage, we want the government to recognize that we are equal citizens who pay taxes and otherwise contribute to our communities and that we deserve THE SAME RIGHTS AS HETEROSEXUAL AMERICANS. period. we don't care if people wish to recognize the love we have for one another, we just don't want our government writing discrimination into the books. haven't we had enough of that?

[Futureosophy]

03:01 PM on 05/16/2008

Overturning Marriage
However what should most be highlighted by this decision is that the foundation of the institution of marriage is fundamentally flawed and that the entire structure has for years been slipping into the sea taking all couples, straight or gay, to a watery grave.

I do not say this because homosexuals don’t deserve the right to be married, they do, but because it would be better to completely strike down the very notion of being married in the first place.

Full @ www.futureosophy.com
http://www.futureosophy.com/2008/05/overturning-marriage.html

[JohnKemp]

02:06 PM on 05/16/2008

So, four judges overturn the will of 61% of all CA voters which must be several million.

And the libs are ecstatic.

Libs love activist judges, dictators, censorship & revisionism.

[BadCompany]

02:37 PM on 05/16/2008

They like following the constitution, too crybaby.

[starrianna]

03:45 PM on 05/16/2008

JohnKemp,

What is your problem? Are you tempted or threatened by the gays?

Are you afraid? Hahahahaha.

[Killer1417]

03:05 PM on 05/16/2008

Let's see...

Activist judges installed Bush

Bush acts like a dictator (and has even said it would be great if he were one)

The Bush administration censors pretty much anything they don't like, truth be damned

Bush constantly revises his stand on his many failed policies to make it appear that reality is somehow in-tune with his intentions

Yeah, libs are sure ecstatic on that one.

[GodIs]

01:26 PM on 05/16/2008

Faith counteracts the effects of sinful actions and activities.

[hypnotoad72]

02:40 PM on 05/16/2008

As does asking forgiveness, on the provision one doesn't keep doing it.

And if "liberals" cared, they'd remove their trollish blinders and look at EVERY side to the story. (they love to tolerate men flashing their body parts and body part shaped parade floats too. If this gay thing was even remotely serious, nobody would tolerate such "outlandishness", for lack of more stern terminology.)

Roseanne was right.

[HaloGuy]

03:03 PM on 05/16/2008

Did you ever stop to think that the excessive flaunting of our sexuality might be the direct result of constant oppression from people such as yourself?

I am a pretty conservative gay man (mainly because of oppression from people such as yourself), but I applaud men who take open pride in their sexuality.

If you want to see a change, start giving us some validation, jerk.

[FreeThinkn1]

07:24 PM on 05/16/2008

It sounds like you need to come out of the closet...

[ceu]

03:07 PM on 05/16/2008

And, luckily, we're not required to be part of YOUR faith.

[GodIs]

04:44 PM on 05/16/2008

I'll prey for you anyway.

[waltontynerross]

12:28 PM on 05/16/2008

This is, and always was, a straw man issue.

It's all about one's personal definition of the word marriage. For many Americans that involves their church and a time-honored religious rite. For others, it's a marriage license and a ceremony of their choosing, one that reflects their values and commitment to one another.

The problem therein the word itself--marriage.

I wish the right-wing, which is so very good at catch phrases and positioning, would just serve up a new term for the type of church marriages they feel must stay between man and woman (and, of course, yes, that is a church's right). Why not "holy marriage" or "blessed marriage."

Alternatively the states that choose to permit gay marriage could stick to the euphemism of 'civil union.' The issue there, I think, is that many, many traditional couples get married outside the church these days. And they still think of it as a marriage--in both civic and spiritual terms.

Who will blink?

[NoCalDrummer]

02:04 PM on 05/16/2008

Marriage is a religious rite. Civil Unions are a secular contract. I'm fine without a "marriage", but I should have as much right to visit my partner in the hospital, make medical decisions for him, inheritance, and any one of over a thousand other state-sanctioned "rights" that my brother enjoys with his "wife". If we change what the government calls "marriage", NOT to "one-man-one-woman", but to "a religious rite that has no bearing on the action of the State" (separation of Church and State, remember?) but sets up "Civil Unions" for any adult couple who wishes the rights AND responsibilities that go with the Civil Union, then society benefits. Children see that a loving, lasting relationship is a cornerstone of EVERYONE in society. To not do so is discriminatory, and it not only demeans the committed relationships, but the people who are in them.
Upon the announcement yesterday, I didn't see God strike California with earthquakes or storms. I didn't see Satan come pouring out of fissures in the ground. I didn't see the four horsemen of the apocalypse riding through the streets, nor did the sun blink out. I DID see Hope, and Rejoicing and Pride in a Community, and in being citizens of California. And I'm happy for us all.

[hypnotoad72]

02:44 PM on 05/16/2008

I agree - especially as you clearly understand the differences. Civil unions are up for the general public, religious rites can only be decided by the religions and those who represent them.

But having lived in the so-called "community" for a decade, before fully realizing how wrong I was despite fellow gays calling me "unevolved" for wanting a union, I disagree that it should be called a "community". Amongst other various nitpicks (is it pride to show off one's genitalia in public?)

I'm glad some out there actually want relationships, but in reality few do.

The "community" is wrong, and I regret supporting for something that isn't.

[Crozier]

02:55 PM on 05/16/2008

My spouse is a Canadian citizen. We have been partnered for 32 years and the last five as legally married. Yes, the issue is the word. I want the SAME word for the SAME legal status. That reality is what seven countries permit their citizens. Of course, their culture is mature and not the reservoir of religious intolerance that the US represents.

Major Christian churches support their right to accept or reject sacraments or ordinances of Spiritual Rite Marriage . Simultaneously they all accept the right of all to receive the SAME LEGAL STATUS.

IF BUBBA AND BUBBETTE RETURN THEIR MARRIAGE LICENCE GIVEN TO THEM BY THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND GET A CIVIL UNION CERTIFICATE, THEN THEY COULD TAKE MY REAL PROVINCIAL MARRIAGE LICENCE OUT OF MY COLD AND DEAD HANDS.

[dimlight]

11:56 AM on 05/16/2008

Disenfranchised voters via the courts... prime example of why judicial appointments are so important...

After the Dem primaries and this case...why don't we just do away with voter rights and have the courts and the DNC make all decisions in the nation...unbelievable...this nation is in real trouble......

[zenlikejen]

12:59 PM on 05/16/2008

Sure! Sounds fantastic...why NOT let the will of the majority decide what's "right" for the minority - civil rights be damned!

/sarcasm

I can't be the only one tired of dealing with the willfully ignorant.....

[robynuva]

01:14 PM on 05/16/2008

You are so not the only one.

[Chris]

03:25 PM on 05/16/2008

Marriage of any sort is not a civil right.

If it was a civil right then you would have to allow incestual marriages as well as polygamy.

Civil rights should be nearly restrictionless.

[robynuva]

01:06 PM on 05/16/2008

I am very tired of this stupid argument about the "will of the people." If voters in California decided that it was now ok to sell your children into slavery, that's OK, because it is the will of the people?

The Constitution and specifically the Amendments were created in part to protect the minority from losing basic rights to the will of the majority. It was to protect folks from mob rule. You know, from the racist, xenophobic, homophobics, ignorant, and the uneducated.

[Chris]

03:18 PM on 05/16/2008

It also is suppose to protect the people from those who beleive they know what is best for everyone.

[2warvet]

11:30 AM on 05/16/2008

All though I agree with the decision that this is a states rights issue, they over turned the will of the people who voted in 2000 to define marriage as 1 man 1 woman. It is not up to the justices to legislate from the bench. If the state legislature had passed the law and the courts has struck it down is one thing, but the people spoke up by voting how they felt. It sets a dangerous precident.

[Spazzers]

11:37 AM on 05/16/2008

If the will of the people conflicts with the constitutional rights of others it is the court's responsibility to overturn the law. The justices did not legislate. They interpreted the law to be unconstitutional. That's their job.

It isn't a precident.

[LiberalBuzz]

12:00 PM on 05/16/2008

One of the basic principles of the Constitution was to PROTECT THE MINORITY FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY!

The will of the people at one time believed slavery was perfectly okay. I suppose you still think the will of the people in that little endeavor should still be upheld?

OR the right of women to vote.

So this crap about the will of the people is not always the way it should be. IF a law has been designed to suppress the granting of equal rights to a group of people then it is only right and fair for the courts to throw it into the dustbins of history.

[dimlight]

12:04 PM on 05/16/2008

What would your garb be if voters approved gay marriage and the court ruled that to be unconstitutional?....hummm

[k6007]

11:48 AM on 05/16/2008

The Justices were conservatives. I hope this isn't some right-wing shenanagens. Funny how we always end up discussing this issue during a presidential election year. Politics of distraction, perhaps?