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.

Story continues below

advertisement

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

[kellygrrrl]

TO All gay and lesbian loving couples

We Welcome You
with Open Arms, Open Hearts, Open Minds
Come on over!

please, do NOT bring your SUV or gun!

xo
CA

[missmarple]

I'm surprised that fire and brimstone didn't rain down on California (my State) since it has to be similar to what - according to Hagee - caused Katrina. Just pray we don't have an earthquake soon! I'm still trying to figure out why marriage is SO in danger that it has to be saved and why my 51 year marriage might be endangered by gays marrying. I've tried for years to get an answer to this and I'm still waiting.

[only1Demvoter]

missmarple : Oh ! ( According to Fartwell, we WILL be... )

The 8.2 is tonight ! ... I know I'm holding MY breath !


More to follow. -ralph

[useyourbrain]

Because now you will turn gay, improve your neighborhood by raising property values, have some good taste and not have any kids.

[Crozier]

MA here....and NS the other six months - I am half - married in my country, and fully and legally married in my spouse's nation. Half - married is that my Canadian marriage is considered legal in MA but not the rest except for CA now. In the states with civil unions, even with similar rights, it is apples and oranges. It is what Plessy and Jim Crow gave black Americans.

[dgscol]

Did you see the mayor of San Francisco do his Al Pacino impression? Wow ! He should be an actor, not a public representative.

[ByersL]

Congratulations to CA and even AHNOLD who will respect the decision. Best wishes for all those happy nuptuals to come....but as a married woman of 29 years, are you sure you haven't suffered enough? Haha!

[Nimajoon31]

Well done!

I sent a letter to Ahhnold, praising him for not challenging the decision.

[kellygrrrl]

did you also ask him how he could give the Yacht Owners a tax break
and why is he the guest of honor at a Yacht Party this weekend.

If he would like to amend the tax break to state that all Yacht Owners only get the tax break if they provide their yacht as a public use locale for at least one GAY WEDDING per month, I'll let him slide.

[useyourbrain]

Yeah, great hypocrite move by Ahhnold. When running for office he said if the Legislature sent him a bill he would sign it. They did. Twice. He vetoed it both times saying it was for the Courts to decide.
A very wimpish and, for a Republican, strange thing to say. But there you have it. I guess he feels bad enough about vetoing the bill and breaking his word. That he won't challenge means it won't go to other courts.

[glitzqueen]

Congratulations, California! Lucky you, to have a court that still cares about equal rights for all. If a similar outbreak of justice should occur here in New Mexico, it will be a great benefit to my son and his partner.

Best wishes to all the California couples who're free to marry now, and to all who rejoice with them.

[bar1ed]

this is truly a great day for LOVING people - love has no boundaries - there are no rules to judge - no place for anyone to get involved in, except the people involved - love = freedom - today was a small step on that road to make the USA a more perfect union. Congrats, now get a hotel room ! ! !

[randyjet]

As a long time liberal, I am appalled at this decision. We should remember that such reasoning as this court applied can and has been used against us in the past. Judicial legislating from the bench should be fought tooth and nail. It was just such legislating that gave us segregation when the Supreme Court refused to apply the law of the 14th amendment. It was crystal clear law, yet the justices overruled that amendment.
There is nothing in law that mandates that gays have the right to marry. It takes an extreme view of the courts powers, and stretches it beyond any reasonable limit. When Warren wrote the opinion in Brown vs Topeka, he made damn sure that he had a UNANIMOUS court opinion since he knew it would be so controversial. It is the height of folly to make such a major change in law and custom on a narrow 4-3 split decision. Not to mention spitting in the face of the legislature and the people of CA who voted against such a thing. I would have no problem IF the legislature had passed such a bill. I DO have a BIG problem when a court decides new laws over the wishes of the legislature and the people.

[JadedAggie]

The point is they did not create a law. They struck down one, which is their role.

[Julie24]

Sit down, be quiet and let my partner and me get the same "persuit of happiness" that every other INDIVIDUAL gets. Even if we've escaped it this long as someone above commented on. haha good one by the way.

[torrrep]

My pursuit of happiness includes no gay marriage. Whether you like it or not. Your pursuit does NOT trump my pursuit.

[JackNasty]

"Not to mention spitting in the face of the legislature and the people of CA who voted against such a thing. I would have no problem IF the legislature had passed such a bill. I DO have a BIG problem when a court decides new laws over the wishes of the legislature and the people." -- randyjet

California's state legislature twice passed a bi;l allowing same sex marriage. Twice the Gubernator vetoed. it,. Schwarzenegger's rationalization was that removing the ban was up to the courts.

Since when was any law that denies a class of people equal protection under the law, as required by the 14th Amendment, not subject to judicial review?

[randyjet]

You need to learn some law and history. Native Americans were NOT even considered citizens until Congress passed a law making them that. The 14th Amendment only applied to former slaves, not to gays, and all other classes. It does NOT apply to handicapped people either. Discrimination is not only legal but necessary in all walks of life. You do that when you hire somebody over another etc.. There is legal discrimination against young men who must register with Selective Service etc..
If the 14th Amendment made gays a protected class, I would agree with you and the courts decision. Until such time as you can show me that, you are flat out wrong and expanding the amendment FAR beyond what it intended.

[Kynn]

There's nothing that can be written into law that can take away the right of gay folks to marry.

Currently, it's being viewed as a states rights issue. As such, states can then put a ban into their constitution.

Marriage, as it exists and has always existed, is a political agreement, as such, it should never be withheld from consenting adults.

[useyourbrain]

It is actually an economic agreement. Corporations can even marry. All marriages should be Civil and if people want to marry in Church and the Church allows it, then have a religious ceremony.

People forget that marriage is not sanctified by the States, that's a religious term and not allowed -- there is no religious tests in our country for office, jobs, etc. All States license priests, rabbis and ministers to perform marriages so it is a State Approval that comes into play and the State has no right to prevent one citizen from entering into a Civil Agreement.

And the Court getting into the child raising thing is a little absurd since there is no requirement in any State for people to have children, to procreate or adopt children.
Raising children should not be an issue when it comes to Civil marriage. Many mixed couples don't want children or can't have children. It's an absurb argument to make -- although the NY Supreme Court did just that. What idiocy -- to say gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they cannot reproduce? I hope that decision is challenged because nowhere in the NYS laws governing marriage is there a requirement to raise ro make babies.

[useyourbrain]

Hey, Mr. Long-Time-Liberal, the California Legislature twice sent a bill to Arnold and he vetoed them after campaigning saying he would sign them.

Also, there were slavery laws in the 18th and 19th century allowing people to own other people, to sell them as cattle. Those laws were changed over time since the people of 1776 are not the same people as 1876 or 1976 or now. If that were put to a vote now, it probably wouldn't pass.

The US Constitution says that all men are created equal. There is nothing that says only heterosexual men are equal.

[lornejl]

Discrimination is unacceptable, duh.

[DonKrieger]

This is wonderful wonderful news. It's just a right thing.

We have placed a complete copy of the Court's Opinion on our website. It's very convenient and fast. You need only your web browser; no pdf files are used or any other add-on requirements. There are no ads and no popups. Everything on our site is free and permanent. Here is the link for the Opinion. evendon.com/#Lockyer-v-SFM.htmom/#Lockyer-v-SFM.htm

Don

[DonKrieger]

I apologize for making an error on the URL. Here it is corrected:

http://publicservice.evendon.com/#Lockyer-v-SFM

[bratzilla]

I dont understand all the flack about Gay Marriage. If you dont believe in gay marriage dont marry a gay guy. But it is a persons own business what they do behind closed doors. Even if religiously you dont believe in Gay Marriage. I ask you who has to stand in front of God on Judgement day, you or them? Do you think God or Jesus will be glad that you spewed and condoned all your hate of Gay People?

[ByersL]

Here Here! Nice point!

[blackjack19]

Apparently, Republican offspring are weak minded and easily influenced, and would more likely fall prey to the "evil homosexuals" looking to turn the nation's children gay.

[johnfoirdfw]

If you give one group equal civil rights, they will all soon want them!

[Nyland8]

Continued 8
We are not so long out of swinging from the trees by our tails - and I suspect we will not see these issues resolved in our lifetimes. Most of the world's population still sees women as the possession of men - and I think that this is what marriage was really created to be - a contract whereby men owned women, thus making them unavailable to other men. “Possession is nine-tenths of the law”.

Isn't it ironic that so many women actually want to be married? How might the world be transformed if suddenly, women everywhere were to organize and refuse to be participants in this institution on anything but their own terms?

And if men are willing to eat with utensils, just for a chance to inseminate … well then … what else might we be willing to do?

It could change the world.

8

[only1Demvoter]

8 : ... Or a prehensile tail either !


The Eighties were SO confusing at their climax !

... Perhaps there's a ' silver lining ' !!


-ralph

[Nyland8]

Continued 7
The Bush administration is again, you guessed it, on the wrong side of this “defense of marriage” issue, as they are on many others that I’m sure most of you can think of. How do immigration laws attack marriage? How might our Tax laws?

So, of all the things that really do threaten marriage, and there are plenty, this administration doesn’t lift a finger to do anything about them – in fact even opposes those changes. But they would have us believe that they wish to protect marriage, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It’s almost as if the discomfort of explaining to our children why the ladies down the street live together, or why those two guys hold hands in public, is somehow more trouble than explaining to them that Mommy or Daddy won’t be coming home again because they were killed in a foreign war which was not in defense of this country.

I know many gay couples and several, in fact, who've been together for decades. If they wish to call themselves married, I honestly can't conceive of who should be threatened by this. But some people are. And it's safe to speculate that this fear does not emanate from their "close personal relationship with God". Fear, hatred, intolerance, judgment of others, et al are not Christian values - at least not on my planet.

8

[useyourbrain]

Divorce threatens marriage and if you want to go all Biblical, Jesus said not a word about homos but he did go on and on about divorce (he was against it BIG TIME). Yet every State, the Federal Government, all Federal, State and Local agencies, the IRS, Social Security, Military, etc. all recognize divorce and allow it. Even some churches allow it. Why no Constitutional Amendments to really protect marriage -- outlaw divorce!

[pennyfortheguy]

On the bright side it doesn't nullify gravity or biology.

[Nyland8]

Continued 6
Unemployment is a huge threat to marriage, as is poverty in general. Many divorces result as a byproduct of financial woes. Full employment and a living wage, i.e. doubling or tripling the minimum wage, would be a "defense of marriage" act. The political Right opposes this.

Lack of education, ignorance, poor communication skills, unrealistic expectations are all threats to successful marriage. Good education for all, especially in human relations and sex, would be considered a "defense of marriage act". The religious Right opposes this.

Prison threatens marriage. Imagine how difficult it must be to maintain a marriage when one spouse, or both, are locked up for years. Draconian drug laws that imprison users or pot growers destroy marriages. Reversing these laws could certainly be considered "in defense of marriage". Self-described “Law and Order” types oppose this.

War assaults marriage. Who knows how many military spouses have had their marriages ruined by going off to war. Time and distance conspire to disrupt marriages and spouses are often unrecognizably transformed by war, not just physically but psychologically and emotionally … and those are the "lucky" ones who aren't killed outright. Nothing destroys a marriage like death. “… Until death do you part”. Putting a stop to capricious, wrong-headed wars would undoubtedly be a "defense of marriage act”.

8

[guajiro]

Thank you Nyland8 for a humerous, interesting and insightful post(s). As with most conservative positions, they lose steam in the light of common sense.

[Nyland8]

You're welcome.

8