I'm not sure how California Supreme Court decisions get "leaked" 2 months in advance, or how accurate your information is. No matter.
What I do know is that your timing in posting this won't do any favors to those of us who support gay marriage here in California.
According to Equality California, a marriage equality organization here in our state, the anti-gay marriage forces are very close to getting enough signatures to put an anti-gay marriage initiative onto the November ballot that would make gay marriage unconstitutional in our state. They're paying people to go out and get signatures so they can stop gay marriage here in California. They've almost reached their goal of getting the 1.1 million signatures they need to nullify anything the Supreme Court may decide, by paving the way to get an anti-gay marriage amendment added to our state Constitution.
Your article leaking the "news" of a pro-gay marriage Supreme Court decision, however accurate or not, is a gift to their side. It's all their need to stoke the fears of the terrified anti-gay marriage folks, assuring they will get those last signatures before the April 21 deadline.
Thanks a lot.
The Great California Gay Marriage Shift
The fight for gay marriage in California has been a tough one during the last decade. In 2000, Proposition 22 was passed by 62% of the state's voters, limiting marriage to a man and a women. Its since been sent to the State's Supreme Court. Gov. Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed Gay Marriage Bills sent to him by the California Legislature, the second as recently as last year. "He will uphold whatever the court decides," Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said after the bill's original passing.
Fearing the court's decision, the Family Research council has launched a ballot initiative for a Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage in California. "After oral arguments in the case, it appears very likely that the majority of judges on California's highest court will rule against the current meaning of marriage, opening up God's ordained institution to same-sex couples," they said in a March fundraising email.
Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.
Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment, "I will always be there to fight against that," he said to huge applause this weekend at a Log Cabin Republican Convention in San Diego. He went so far as to call the initiative a "waste of time" and acknowledge that the people of California are, "much further along on that issue." The latest Field Poll shows only 51% of Californians oppose full gay marriage, an 11 point drop since 2000.
There seems little doubt that California is moving toward full gay marriage equality.
Near the end of February I flew out to Los Angeles to join a coalition of gay activists to lobby Gov. Schwarzenegger & First Lady Maria Shriver to publicly oppose the Family Research Council's initiative. One of the group's main organizers, Kevin Norte, wrote on The California Log Cabin blog, "Someone had to fire the first shot. We did. We had some powerhouses there and the message was clear. We were not going away."
The coalition had a broad base, including; Matt Foreman (Executive
Director, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force), Damon Romine
(Entertainment Media Director, GLAAD), Geoff Kors (Executive
Director, Equality California), Charles Robbins (Executive Director,
The Trevor Project), Mayor John Duran (President, Equality California
& Mayor of West Hollywood), Charles T. Moran (Log Cabin Republicans LA
Chapter President), James Vaughn (LCR CA Director), and the organizers
Don Norte (Governor's Committee on Labor for People With Disabilities)
and Kevin Norte (LCR CA PAC Director).
Kevin and Don kept on the Governor, reminding him of his commitment to equality. He listened.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Then just get out and make sure that people don't VOTE for the amendment. I may not know everything about California politics, but I know enough from when I was stationed in San Diego to know that after the signatures comes the VOTING!!!
Good. The gays are quietly gaining enough political and financial influence to effect policy. Pretty soon, they can tell the haters to kiss their toned butts. Can't wait!!!
I don't think that CA should grant gay marriage. I think that they should not grant STRAIGHT marriage, either. The government needs to stop calling it marriage, and leave that term to the church. You need to go to the state to get a CIVIL UNION license, whether you are a gay couple, or a straight couple. Once you get a civil union license, then you get the tax benefits, survivor benefits, and become legally one person, just like with marriage today. If you want the church to MARRY you, then they can do so, whether or not you've got a license, if they want to. But if you simply get married, without the civil union license, then you DON'T get any of the benefits!!!
I have a better idea. Lets, for legal reasons,remove the church and religion from Marriage altogether. People, as they do in France, go to the Justice of Peace or Marriage License Bureau to get their license and can be married there. This would be a Civil Marriage and would confer full legal rights to the new couple as pertains to marriage. Anyone without regards to sexual orientation, religion, race et al could get married. They would have to do this FIRST before a Church wedding.
Now if someone wanted religious recognition of their marriage ---they could then have a Church or religious wedding IF the Church agreed. No Church would be required to marry anyone straight or gay if they did not wish to.
Rationale: Church and State are separate under the US Constitution. For many years the Church has been doing the State's business for them and registering marriages. This should not be and needs to be changed in order to get the Church and State completely out of bed with each other.
That's what I'm saying! You get a Civil Union license, which confers upon you ALL the benefits of legal union. IF you then want to get MARRIED, then you can go to a church!
A lot of people are confused about marriage.
A hetero couple can have a CIVIL marriage, just as binding as a church wedding. Whether the couple goes through a marriage ceremony in front of a civil authority or a religious authority makes no difference in the eyes of the law.
In the eyes of the law, marriage is a legal status, not a religious condition.
That's why I'm saying that we need to separate the two ideas. One is religious: Marriage. The other is NOT religious: Civil Unions. Married people have BOTH in their lives, the marriage from some authority (religious, justice of the peace, etc...) and the Civil Union from the state, allowing them to inherit, allowing them to make decisions regarding medical care, allowing them to file taxes jointly, etc....
I like the idea. It solves many of the problems we have at the root and treats everyone fairly. Bravo
They should marry if they want and it will be much easier for this to be legalized by state governments than to hope it will be legalized federally. This is one of those battles won incrementally.
I can see no logical reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry just like every other couple.
Its past time we put these small-minded prejudices behind us -- certainly no one has to support gay marriage if they don't choose to do so, but likewise those who do not support said marriages should not have the right to keep gay couples from getting married if that is what they wish to do.
Hopefully California (my state) will be progressive enough to address this directly and right a wrong that should have been directly addressed quite some time ago.
"...it appears very likely that the majority of judges on California's highest court will rule against the current meaning of marriage, opening up God's ordained institution to same-sex couples."
And here I thought that our constitution guaranteed us separation of church and state. When politicians and their like keep using their God as an excuse to deny an entire group of people from sharing a basic freedom, it starts to look like that separation is nothing more than lip service.
Sorry Drama Queen, this is not a reply to you, but I could find no button to start a comment stream.
What I wanted to say is that instead of tooting their cute horns that they were not 'going away' all these rich white gays should have been saying.... we will be the first ones out of the state with all our $$$$ if we don't get marriage equality soon.
I respectfully disagree with your comments. Let's not lash out to those that are trying to make a difference. Yes, in the real world money provides access, and if there are people out there who want to use their money and influence for the good of society so be it. It is about opening doors not slamming the "rich white gay guys" who could be using their disposable income for self-serving purposes like trips, cars, and fabulous clothes.
Running to another state is sort of cowardly. California is ground zero for change and let's hope we continue to make progress. To do that everyone needs to work together.
I agree with you. Whether we like it or not religion is woven in to our, and likely every, society. It seems to me that as you educate people that the fight is really about the benefits the government gives to married couples, legal protections of the estate and children, being able to visit your partner in a crisis, etc. many of those barriers begin to erode. I still have a hope that the majority of people in this country are not filled with hate by default.
On the flip side, I can understand a religious person who believes that homosexuality is a sin feeling a strong aversion to being told that gays have to be allowed to wed in their church. Of course this is not what the fight for gay marriage is, but I believe this is what a lot of people hear and/or think when the topic is brought up.
As for the God part: well Tammy Faye said it best "God don't make no junk" :)
why don't people understand that no church has to perform a wedding ceremony for ANY couple, gay or straight? why would anyone think a gay couple would want to have a wedding at a church they are not a member of? that whole argument makes no sense. no church service is needed for a marriage anyway.
it's my experience that this is not what they are worried about. they don't want the state to recognize gay marriage as valid because they don't want to have to recognie them as legal even outside of their church. and, they don't want to have to explain it to their chidren
I totally agree with your statement about being wed in a church who is against homosexuality. I would not allow a minister to perform my wedding who did not believe that it would be blessed by whatever god they serve. It would be hypocrisy. I would personally be just as happy with a justice of the peace who would give me a simple civil service. Also it goes back to the simple concept of separation of church and state. A minister has the right to decide whether or not to perform a wedding. That is a personal choice that cannot be interfered with because of that separation.
Amen :)
I look forward to California finally doing the right thing, and I am glad to hear that the governator has come round to actually stand up for gay marriage. Especially since he vetoed the legislature twice on this issue.
Until the feds see it the same way, today, April 15th, will always cost the GLBT community much more than our straight counterparts. I guess this will help to keep social security solvent a bit longer. ;)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/04/14/gay.taxes.ap/index.html
Pardon my error; the governer does not support gay marriage, but does oppose a constitutional amendment banning same. I guess that is a start.
Arnold speaks with a forked tongue. He promised he would sign a bill that the legistlature send to him recognizing the human and civil rights for same sex couples to marry. He has made many other promises. Then he stabbed us all in the back. So it is not safe to predict what he will do or not do even if he tells you what he says he will do. His behavior like this been repeated several times so the best that we can do is just hold our breath until the Courts rule and hope he signs any legistlative bills put before him.
You can bet your bottom dollar that if the mean spirited holy rollers get their wayl; there will be no same sex marriage and marriage will be defined in the State Constitution as only between a Woman and a Man. I fail to understand these people. How does it affect them personally if a gay couple is married?? Not at all unless they have a gay kid and we should feel sorry for this child because you can bet that this child is being subjected to cruel and unusual trreatments by the Exodus and like minded folks.
I don't think that he opposes a constitutional amendment banning it, I think that he's just looking at the way the winds are blowing, and is standing for a cause that won't hurt him too much, but won't HELP the LGBT community....
If any heterosexual couple's marriage is 'threatened' by homosexuality , the wife might want to keep an eye on her husband when he uses a public men's room, especially if he is in there longer than 5 minutes
Two words: Rose Bird. The California Supreme Court is composed of six Republican appointed Justices and one Democratic appointee. The Republican Justices lean to the Western states libertarian factions of the GOP. California's Justices are appointed, but every five years must be approved by the voters in a general election. This is where the fun begins. If the California Supreme Court gets it wrong and goes against the wishes of the people, it is relatively easy to get recalls and kick the Justices out of office. It happened in the 1980s with Rose Bird and her compatriots who never found a death penalty law that they could agree with. So the voters cleaned out the California Supreme Court and started over.
Arnold didn't come out in support of same sex marriage. He came out against the amendment that might be presented to the voters in the November election that would ban same sex marriage. His position is one of indifference and he stated that on several occasions. His view is if the courts or the people want it, he will follow the law and support it. He has historical precendence. In 1977 ex Governor Reagan came out against an intiative that would have prevented gays from teaching in any schools in California. It was defeated and Reagan's departure from the social conservative wing of the GOP was a major factor.
Predicting the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling on the Federal or state level is a fool's mission.
It often feels like equality for gay Americans will never come, but I still keep hope alive (and support Hillary Clinton for president)!
Well, there's your problem: your shoes don't match your bag.
Hillary Clinton? Are you kidding me? She is a panderer.......and nothing more. She flat out said that she would only support repealing the federal related portions of DOMA which currently denies federal benefits (such as tax breaks, survivor's benefits, etc.) but would leave in place the other portions of DOMA which other states don't have to recognize your union. Meaning if you get married here in CA and move to AZ, your union will not be recognized by either the state OR by the feds because the state does NOT recognize the union.
Obama is in favor of repealing DOMA in its ENTIRETY!
"...but would leave in place the other portions of DOMA which other states don't have to recognize your union."
DOMA in it's entirety ALREADY does that. Gay marriage is perfectly legal in Mass., but those unions are not recognized outside of that state, nor by the federal government. So, please, before you start citing a policy or group of policies that supposedly protect, make sure that is actually what they are doing.
That's what Dave01 said, that Hillary would leave in the provisions of the so called Defense Of Marriage Act which don't require other states OR the federal government to recognize marriages made in other states....
By the way, is this Constitutional? I'm pretty sure that the Constitution says that if one state makes a decision that the others have to recognize it. That's why a slave who was brought into the north with their owner would still be a slave, since the state that they were from allowed slavery......
And by repealing DOMA in its entirety would accomplish what? It certainly won't invalidate the state level constitutional amendments banning same marriage in those states that have passed them. And it won't provide any legal clarity either.
What has Obama suggested in replacement? What has he suggested he will encourage lawmakers to pursue in the aftermath of abondoning DOMA completely? The legal challenges and chaos resulting from such a knee-jerk, "pandering" approach to the situation reveals a certain lack of depth of understanding I would think.
I think that the approach of educating people, reaching out and showing that we gay men and lesbians are people who deserve and demand respect is working quite well. I prefer to continue working hard rather than being promised something unrealistic.
Repealing the DOMA would force the other states to recognize a marriage made in another state, AND it would force the federal government to recognize such a union.
Here in Massachusetts where gay marriage is the law the only change has been that gay & heterosexual couples have equal rights benefits & protections for their families. Marriage is a basic civil right that should be attainable by all Americans if they choose. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue:) www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Though I do not have a problem with "gay" marriage, I do have a problem with the goverment (local, state, and federal) being involved in the institution of marriage in the first place.
Marriage is at best a social custom with no real underlying validity. It is an artificial contstruct that was invented for the purposes of property and paternity and has no real meaning in an open democratic society where "each" person has the same rights. Marriage confers on people who "couple" additional rights and priviledges and in that sense discriminates against those who choose not to couple.
The government has no right to be involved in the mating and coupling activities of its citizens nor can it establish a good and reasonable cause to be involved in these biological and social arrangements, not for the good of the individual, the people, or the country.
The real battle, therefore, should not be whether to grant gays, transsexuals, or other alternative gender selections the right to marry but rather to get the government out of our personal lives and stop giving incentives for marriage - an archaic social and religious custom of dubious merit.
Gays who insist on the right to marriage and with it the rights and priviledges conferred therein are themselves discriminating against those of us who eschew marriage as an archaic vestige of the patriarchal past.
Marriage, as you have defined it, is in fact a mere social construct. However, I think that the state should still be involved in some sort of civil union. The reason for this is to better allow for any children which result from such a coupling, as well as to help the couple move together better. I would like to see an allowance made for other forms of "marriage", however. If two couples find that they are in love with each other (all 4) and want to join together into 1 union, they should be allowed to. And if a group WANTS to form such as we've seen in the Texas cult, why should we stop them????
RadioRearch makes some excellent points. Our government, depending on which body you ask, is now legislating that domestic partners in California have to file jointly. Beginning with the taxes due this April 15, registered domestic partners are required to file state income taxes jointly, the same as if they were married.
Domestic partners in California no longer have the option of filing individual state income taxes.
This is different from the federal rules, which continue to prohibit domestic partners from filing jointly.
So, joint filing is required for state income taxes, and prohibited for federal income taxes.
If you are a registered domestic partner and you have already filed state income taxes as if you were single, you will need to file an amended return.
Please let friends who are registered domestic partners know.
Note: "registered domestic partners" means people are registered with the State of California as domestic partners.
How's that for an oxymoron? The State wants you to pay taxes like a married couple, but yet we have people who sware relationships between same sex partners are not the same as married people. If domestic partners in of California are expected to comply we must demand marraige equality!
I agree with you in a very small part: I think the government sould get out of the "marriage business." Marriage should be between people and their religion and their god. But instead, the government should provide civil unions as the legal contract that validates relationships in the eyes of the government for the support of families. It's our penchant for combining the legal and the spiritual bases of marriage that has made all of this so ridiculous. I know a lot of people who are against gay marriage because of religious grounds but don't give a hoot about the legal rights and benefits conferred by the civil side of marriage. And until marriage (or whatever is supported legally) is available to us federally as well as in our states, it's still an unequal arrangement.
Posted April 15, 2008 | 01:58 PM (EST)