A Victory for Equality: California Affirms the Freedom to Marry

History was made today when the California Supreme Court ruled that lesbian and gay couples have a fundamental right to marry under the state's constitution. The decision, grounded in the California Constitution's promises of equality and due process, means that same-sex couples who wish to commit themselves to one another, to honor and protect one another, may do so through marriage.

In a 4-3 decision, drafted by Chief Justice Ronald George, the court ruled: "In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry -- and their central importance to an individual's opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society -- the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation."

The court also noted: "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."

At the heart of this case are the many plaintiff couples who courageously brought their private lives into the public eye in order to pursue the freedom to marry. Among them are Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon who, now in their 80s and with more than 50 years together, have waited nearly a lifetime for this moment. This ruling is a sweet victory for them and for all lesbian and gay couples who have waited for this day.

This is not the first time that the California high court has considered the question of marriage or recognized that the right to marry cannot be denied to a class of citizens because of who they are. In 1948, the California Supreme Court dismissed bans on interracial marriage as unconstitutional in Perez v. Sharp. The Perez case was a precursor to the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down remaining bans on interracial marriage. Those cases helped to close the book on our nation's segregation laws.

Mildred Loving, who quietly lived out a family life made possible by the Supreme Court's decision in her case, understood the great relevance of her family's struggle to the issue of marriage for lesbian and gay people. Before she died, she weighed in on the issue, speaking powerfully in her own words and leaving no doubt about where she stood on the matter. She wrote:

"Not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, and how much it meant to me to have the freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."

We honor Mildred and Richard's memory by applauding the court's leadership in holding that, in California, people have the freedom to marry, the right to choose their own spouse, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. By recognizing that right, the court has shown that it understands what has been denied to lesbian and gay couples by excluding them from marriage: the affirmation of family. In the simplest possible terms, the court found that same-sex couples have the right to come together to form families in the same way that other families do: through marriage. The decision recognizes that the domestic partnership law, though it represented dramatic progress when first enacted and as it was enhanced over the years, was a law destined to keep lesbian and gay people in a second-class status.

The ruling is an affirmation of families and of the wonderful diversity of our state. Moreover, in ruling as it did, the California Supreme Court fulfilled its traditional role in interpreting the provisions of the state constitution to protect the rights of the people. In that way, it is neither liberal or conservative, but represents a victory for all who live in California. That's why no one should be surprised by the fact that three of the four justices who signed the majority opinion were appointed by Republican governors.

As same-sex couples begin marrying across California, their neighbors will wake up the next day to discover that nothing has changed for them. Newly married lesbian and gay couples, and their children, can rest a little easier knowing that their family is both recognized and protected.

We believe that future generations will look back on this landmark case and see that in order to fulfill our cherished constitutional principles, it was the only decision that the court could have made. It is a ruling that honors the spirit of our laws and the protections and freedoms they uphold. For the California Constitution is meant to protect the people, and this decision, made squarely under it, does exactly that.

Today, the legacy that began with a California court case in 1948 comes full circle for couples like Del and Phyllis who now can celebrate that they have the freedom to marry. Marriage may have been the issue at hand, but it was equality and fairness that won the day in court.

Comments

[Raftinfool]

Federalists are fond of saying that the states are the laboratory of democracy. In many cases, changes are initiated in one or two states, the results are monitored by those states and the rest of the country, and then the idea is either adopted more broadly or written off as “it seemed like a good idea at the time”.

We now have a second state running this experiment. But California is the second; Massachusetts has now allowed same-sex marriage for more than four years. Given that one of the strongest arguments against same-sex marriage by religious conservatives has been that it would weaken and damage the institution of marriage, we should certainly see strong signs of that effect by now in Massachusetts if that theory holds true. I consider myself a pretty voracious newshound, but I have not heard even one anecdote of a traditional (male-female) married couple who have actually been impacted in any way by the activities of their Massachusetts neighbors. This would lead a rational observer to conclude that dire predictions of such damage are unsubstantiated at best, and flagrant scare-mongering at worst.

So let's let the lab experiment proceed. Let's take a deep breath, relax, and observe. If the data don't show any bad effects, than let's consider it progress and let it stand.

[Raftinfool]

Federalists are fond of saying that the states are the laboratory of democracy. In many cases, changes are initiated in one or two states, the results are monitored by those states and the rest of the country, and then the idea is either adopted more broadly or written off as “it seemed like a good idea at the time”.

We now have a second state running this experiment. But California is the second; Massachusetts has now allowed same-sex marriage for more than four years. Given that one of the strongest arguments against same-sex marriage by religious conservatives has been that it would weaken and damage the institution of marriage, we should certainly see strong signs of that effect by now in Massachusetts if that theory holds true. I consider myself a pretty voracious newshound, but I have not heard even one anecdote of a traditional (male-female) married couple who have actually been impacted in any way by the activities of their Massachusetts neighbors. This would lead a rational observer to conclude that dire predictions of such damage are unsubstantiated at best, and flagrant scare-mongering at worst.

So let's all just relax, take a deep breath, sit back and see what actually happens. If there are no observable bad results, then let it go, and let it stand.

[j.gold]

Ban all marriage by the government now. Civil unions only! Separation of Church and State now! If you want to get married go to you religious leader. If you want to share with a person or persons legal rights go to city hall.

ONE LAW FOR EVERYONE!

[Beachrunner]

This is the part of the decision I REALLY liked:

"... limiting the designation of marriage to a union 'between a man and a woman' is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute," California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.

Soon a bunch of Mormons are going to challenge the "between a man and a woman" to get it changed to "between a man and one woman."


Can't wait!! My wife can use an extra pair (or more) of female hands around the house.

"Big Love," anyone?

[randyjet]

Gay marriage is of little importance to me as an issue, but using the courts to make new laws and twisting their powers out of all precedent is of FAR greater concern. Using courts to make new laws or overriding the expressed will of the people, is a double edged sword that cuts BOTH ways, liberal and conservative. The past history of the courts has for the most part been on the conservative side. It is only recently that the courts have been more liberal. It was judicial activism that gave us segregation in flaunting the expressed will of the 14th Amendment. It was judicial activism that made FDR consider packing the Supreme Court to override their rulings against the New Deal measures. It was judicial activism that overrode Truman's attempt to settle a steel strike.
Courts are supposed to go by the letter of the law and precedent. The opinion of the CA Supreme Court acknowledges no such boundary since it states that it is the opinion of the court that things have changed in regards to gay marriage. So based on their observation of the "will" of the people, somehow inferred by unknown means, that the new law should be promulgated. To do so by such a narrow vote is absurd as well. If they had gotten more votes for the ruling, they might have some rational legal leg to stand on.

[mikey683]

Probably the most important civil rights story in 43 years and this is the only mention in the Huffpo? Really?

[klmebane]

there are actually a bunch of stories on this topic today at huffpo.

[randyjet]

Well xdevildawg4u, I re read the Loving decision and it only made mention of the 14h Amendment to the Constitution. You took the words out of context which is rather dishonest to say the least. It did NOT say that since it is a fundamental right that can be given by a state, that therefore the laws against close relatives being married were void. It did NOT say that the laws against those with disease is void.It did NOT strike down rules about the age of consent. There are ALL kinds of prohibitions that the court did NOT mention at all and which it LET STAND! It was ONLY in the context of the 14th amendment that Warren stated that principle. So don't BS the rest of us.
It is even worse when you recall that the Court let stand sodomy laws and that they in NO way intended to have such a "right" be extended to gays or same sex couples. When you can show me that the 14th or other parts of the Constitution mention gays, THEN I will agree with the court ruling. The Warren court also decided that case UNANIMOUSLY as well. As opposed to the narrow majority that CA got in 4-3. That alone shows how flawed and incorrect the ruling is. It is outrageous judicial legislating from the bench when the court has such a narrow base for it. Good rulings get unanimous opinions.

[EbonBear]

"legislating from the bench" = " a decision I disagree with". That's all it has ever, ever meant. Anyone who has actually studied law knows how absurd that line is.

[ShamusDaedal]

I'm baffled by the opposition to same sex marriage. Some marriages really upset me. For instance, the one that produced that simpleton George W. Bush! If a few houses in my neighborhood had same sex couples living in them, what business is that of mine? Would it be the grounds for my divorce, if it came?

If the state gives financial benefit to marriages, and it does at all levels, it seems only fair that all citizens should be allowed to get that, too. If denied the equal protection, have gays or lesbians lost the obligation to be ready to join the military to defend us? That seems fair to me, too. No giving, no taking, right? Without question, many of the veterans who fought with honor in prior wars were gay and did us proud.

It still amazes me how really bullied citizens, both African and Japanese Americans, pitched in and fought like hell, and fought very bravely, to help defeat two cultures that practiced the same type of discrimination espoused by the so-called "Christian" right

They should be ashamed!

[xdevildawg4u]

61% down to 52% in less than eight years.

I actually saw a poll today that showed a majority of Californians support marriage equality.

IEither way, t's clear where the state's voters are going and it's also clear why people like randyjet and liberalloons are so frantic to get their bigotry enshrined into the constitution as quickly as possible. They know that they are very close to the tipping point and want to make sure that future generations will get stuck with THEIR anti-gay opinion for years to come.

I think with education the people of California will vote this hateful, discriminatory amendment down. They don't want to be seen as the Mississippi of the West.

randyjet, you really see yourself as an EXPERT on everything don't you. I guess you are going to presume to tell me A MAN WHO IS FROM DESOTO COUNTY MISSISSIPPI AND WHOSE WHOLE FAMILY LIVES THERE, about the Childers/Davis race. You need to stop getting your all your talking points from Faux New Channel. Childers most certainly DID NOT run away from Obama. He embraced him. And even though the Republicans played the Obama/Wright/Pelosi scare ad over and over, day and night, ad nauseam, they couldn't make it stick. Davis lost by EIGHT POINTS in a district where Bush won by almost 30 points in 2004!

I know Republican shill's don't like it when people cloud the issue with the facts but someone has to call you on your crap.

[randyjet]

Well, I just got back from looking at Chiders web site and YOU are LYING! He does NOT embrace Obama in any way shape or form. He states CLEARLY, he is NOT a national Democrat, but a Mississippi Democrat. He is opposed to any gun control, unlike Obama. He is against the high price of oil, and blasted his opponent for raising taxes on gasoline. AGAIN, opposite to Obama. He is very much opposed to any form of gay marriage. So since I got it from the horses mouth so to speak, what I said is TRUE. He RAN AWAY from the national Democratic candidates. On issues, he is FAR closer to Hillary than Obama.
I just wonder how he will convince the majority of voters in his district that he is opposed to Obama during the Presidential campaign.

[xdevildawg4u]

Come back and talk to me again in November.

You sound exactly like all the conservative nay sayers who came here to try to sell their crap before the 2006 elections.

PROMISE me that you will come here after the November election to continue this debate.

[randyjet]

Well, I guess George will soon be joining Rose Bird is being thrown OFF the bench come November. I hope that the voters do NOT forget that part when they go to the polls. Not only should they pass the amendment, but they need to get rid of this feeble minded fool.

[ndtovent]

Well, HollywoodBill, just as the old jim crow laws which ruled the deep south for so many years were eventually repealed, struck down, thrown out (whatever term you wish to use), any bad legislation can be and must be changed. This was yet another horrible piece of legislation which met its demise today. Deal with it.

[liberalloons]

This "victory" never should have happened. The people voted and 61% of them said marriage should be between a man and a woman. But the court over-ruled them. This is a disgrace.

[kdogg]

good thing we have a constitution that protects people's basic rights. you and other bigots can make all the laws you want but they should and will be struck down if they are unconstitutional. one of the reasons our country is so great is the the government can step in and protect the rights of the minorities.

[liberalloons]

Your going to call us bigots. This is how Hitler operated moron. All decisions were made by judges he appointed which over-ruled the people.

[rwe]

AND IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY A GOP COURT AND GOP GOVERNOR

[robinhood2]

So, will gay organizations continue to roll over and automatically endorse Democratic politicians who continue to oppose gay marriage? Read the Governor's and Senator Feinstein's comments on the court decision on another Huffpost board. The Republican Governor definitely sounds more gay friendly. Come to think of it, so did the Republican­-dominated court.

[HollywoodBill]

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Those words are the constitutional amendment that is going to be on the November ballot. 1.1 million signatures were attached to this grass roots petition. 760,790 are required. Make no mistake, this will be on the November ballot.

The six Republican appointed Justices knew exactly what they were doing when they delivered this opinion while there was still time for all parties to have options. The Christo fascists on the far right are preparing the necessary paperwork to delay the implementation of this ruling until after the November election. And they will be able to get the delays. There is no legal reason why they cannot.

And then it is up to the people this November. Last year, the most recent year for polling on the subject, the Field Poll indicated that the state is split 46 even on the subject. California is not only San Francisco and the six liberal counties up north, Los Angeles County in the South and nothing else. There are 58 counties all together and this proposed constitutional amendment, along with the tired battle cry of legislating from the bench is going to be a loud one.

The Justices did the right thing. They are giving ALL THE VOTERS in California, the opportunity to accept their ruling or do something about it. The initiative will be on the ballot this November. The people will have their voices heard.

[robinhood2]

If the will of the people prevailed in the Old South, blacks would still be using drinking fountains that said "Coloreds Only" and riding at the back of the bus. They certainly would not have the right to vote. Discrimination and bigotry have been part of the Republic since its founding. Remember, in the movie "Gone with the Wind" all the slaves were black and all the masters were white. The sad reality is that many Americans still do not believe in the equal protection clause of the constitution.

[randyjet]

YOu need to learn some history. One of the biggest slaveowners in LA was a free Black man immigrant from Haiti. Jefferson Davis and his brother set up their plantation as a model humane plantation in which the slaves had great latitude and freedom. They thought so highly of Davis that they signed a letter to President Grant asking him to release Davis from prison.

[EbonBear]

Will the conservatives here please stop whining about the "will of the people"? There is a very good reason why very few states and almost no civilised countries elect judges, it's called the "tyranny of the majority". The judges decided that the law conflicted with the state's constitution, making that decision one way or the other was their ONLY responsibility, not listening to the "will of the people", not enforcing the prejudices of the majority, simply deciding if the law was in conflict with the state constitution. If judges existed to enforce the "will of the people", then they would be no different than politicans (and Bush would not be president). They made their decision (correctly in my view) based on the law and the state constitution, that is all they had to do. If California dislikes that decision, then they have the option of ammending the state constitution.

Honestly, why is you lot are only in favour of the rule of law when it benefits you? For all your blather, have you no actual principles?