Califoria Supreme Court Rules on Gay Marriage

[rpmdfw]

California's Supreme Court has just returned it's ruling. They're determined that San Francisco acted illeagally in performing the marraiges in 2004.

Well that just blows.

[chip007]

Not so fast.

CNN is reporting: California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

And according to the NY Times:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

[rpmdfw]

Interesting. DP was watching the news and phoned me to tell me they'd ruled against San Francisco.

[chip007]

And from a Lambda Legal email:

"It's an unforgettable day for same-sex couples and advocates of fairness and opportunity across the nation! The California Supreme Court has ruled that the state may no longer exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage. We are so proud.

"Lead counsel NCLR, Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Equality California have been fighting for this victory for four years and today we have made history! But we must all do what we can to make sure that discrimination is not written into the state constitution in California through a ballot initiative."

[rpmdfw]

Cool!

So did they rule that San Fran acted illeagally, but that the ban was unconstitutional?

[chip007]

I haven't read the decision yet.

[rpmdfw]

Arrgh! This is frustrating!

[rpmdfw]

Okay, CNN is reporting that the 2004 marraiges that were nullified by the court are STILL nullified. I think that's what caused the confusion on our end.

[chip007]

Here's the link:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

My favorite quote so far:

Although the understanding of marriage as limited to a union of a man and
a woman is undeniably the predominant one, if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage, (2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment. As the United States Supreme Court observed in its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539 U.S. 558, 579, the expansive and protective provisions of our constitutions, such as the due process clause, were drafted with the knowledge that “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.” For this reason, the interest in retaining a tradition that excludes an historically disfavored minority group from a status that is extended to all others — even when the tradition is long-standing and widely shared — does not necessarily represent a compelling state interest for purposes of equal protection analysis.

[chip007]

From the concurring opinion:

"In Lockyer, this court did not decide whether the California
Constitution’s equal protection guarantee affords a right of marriage to same-sex couples. (Lockyer, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1069.) Rather, this court decided only that local officials lacked authority to decide the constitutional validity of the state marriage statutes and instead should have submitted that question to the judiciary for resolution. (Ibid.) Now that this court has authoritatively and conclusively resolved the underlying constitutional question by holding that state marriage laws are constitutionally invalid insofar as they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples is lawful, and indeed constitutionally required.
In Lockyer, this court declared void all of the approximately 4,000
marriages performed in San Francisco under the licenses issued to same-sex
couples (Lockyer, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1117-1118), and the court here does not undertake any reconsideration of the validity of those marriages.

[rpmdfw]

Thanks chip007!

So it sucks for those couples married in 2004, but it looks like they'll be able to get married again!

So this is great news!

And it's going to mean that our fight in Florida to keep Amendment 2 from passing is going to be BLOODY! It' ain't gonna be pretty at all.

[JohnZ46]

Unfortunately, there will probably be an attempt to change the CA constitution placed on the November ballot. I'm not sure if that requires a simple majority or a 3/4 majority.

We've won this battle but the war is far from over. :sad1:

[TuckandStuiesMom]

unfortunately, we are most likely looking at the same sort of ballot measure here, as well in the fall.

Unfortunately, there will probably be an attempt to change the CA constitution placed on the November ballot. I'm not sure if that requires a simple majority or a 3/4 majority.

We've won this battle but the war is far from over. :sad1:

[Melora]

Here is another story on it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_16

[Viki]

Great news!!!:happytv::happytv::happytv:

[wallyb]

This is great!

Now Mario and I can get hitched!
:love: http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/wallyb3/mariolopezW.jpg:love:
Caliente!

[rpmdfw]

This is great!

Now Mario and I can get hitched!
:love: http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/wallyb3/mariolopezW.jpg:love:
Caliente!

:rotfl:

Wally, I hate to break it to you, but polygamy isn't legal in California, and you're already legally married, so that's a "no go" on you marrying the hot latin guy.

Sorry!

[wallyb]

:rotfl:

Wally, I hate to break it to you, but polygamy isn't legal in California, and you're already legally married, so that's a "no go" on you marrying the hot latin guy.

Sorry!

Do quote a Gay Icon-
"Don't rain on my parade!"

[cybertheo]

My partner used to ask me to marry him way - way back when we first met.
But he quit asking and now we can...
He figures if you get the milk for free why buy the cow.

[RickinNYC]

Do quote a Gay Icon-
"Don't rain on my parade!"


I don't get it. . What icon?

[wallyb]

I don't get it. . What icon?

OMG!:eek:
Rick this could get you throw out!
Barbra Streisand as Fanny Brice sang Don't Rain on My Parade from Funny Girl

[Saxton]

I don't get it. . What icon?

Rick - we're taking your official membership card back.

[wallyb]

Rick - we're taking your official membership card back.

I agree with you -
I don't think there's any returning from this affront. :sad2:

It's like - Sorry. Now you're a straight man.
Case closed.
Pay the bailiff on your way out.

[dis75ney]

OMG!:eek:
Rick this could get you throw out!
Barbra Streisand as Fanny Brice sang Don't Rain on My Parade from Funny Girl


I'm straight and I knew that one... :lmao: I think someone's membership card needs to be taken away...

Anyway, I just wanted to post my congratulations on this ruling!!! Hopefully, the voters will have enough sense to not let an amendment overturn the decision...

My fingers will continue to be crossed for ALL who want to marry!!!

[RickinNYC]

I have no idea of any music by Barbara, Judy, Liza, et al... I'm a bad gay man.

[wallyb]

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/halofreak_2209/hand_pointing_down.jpg See! You've started a recall! Happy?
I'm straight and I knew that one... :lmao: I think someone's membership card needs to be taken away...

Anyway, I just wanted to post my congratulations on this ruling!!! Hopefully, the voters will have enough sense to not let an amendment overturn the decision...

My fingers will continue to be crossed for ALL who want to marry!!!

[PghLybrt]

OMG!:eek:
Rick this could get you throw out!
Barbra Streisand as Fanny Brice sang Don't Rain on My Parade from Funny Girl


I even knew that one !! (and i usually have no idea what it is you men are talking about!)

[AmandaSparks730]

Hey, this is great!!

I mean, I know gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, but now in Cali? AWESOME!!

(Oh, c'mon, RI, c'mon! You can do it!)

[inkkognito]

I was sooo happy to hear the CA news; my undies have been in a bunch about Amendment 2 here in FL, so I'm always glad to see that some states aren't as backward as we are. I was listening to the Neal Boortz radio show, and he was sparring with a caller who claimed to be for gay unions but who didn't want them to be called "marriage." It was hilarious...Neal kept asking him why, and he kept saying "Because marriage is between a man and a woman." Then Neal would say, "Well, why is that?" and the caller would say, "Well, just because it IS." Don't people realize that definitions are fluid and can be changed? Maybe it meant that before, but why can't we expand it now to include any loving couple wishing to make a commitment? "Because" is NOT a good enough answer. I wish people like that would see that they make themselves look like idiots using a logic that intelligent people stop using somewhere around the age of 10.

[Timon-n-Pumbaa Fan]

I don't get it. . What icon?

:scared1: Sweet Jesus, Rick! I'm a southern lesbian that doesn't care for 98% of what Barbara Streisand has done in her career and even I knew that!

[OrlandoMike]

I don't get it. . What icon?

Jeesh Rick,

First I have to take you by your hand through the Home Depot Garden Department and now this?

Did you sleep through orientation?

[rpmdfw]

Jeesh Rick,

First I have to take you by your hand through the Home Depot Garden Department and now this?

Did you sleep through orientation?

I suspect that he knows EXACTLY who we're talking about, and just said that to get a rise outa y'all.

Oh, and it seems to have worked. :lmao:

[wallyb]

I suspect that he knows EXACTLY who we're talking about, and just said that to get a rise outa y'all.

Oh, and it seems to have worked. :lmao:

He did not get rise out of me. ;)
Or maybe he did.
http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s237/LORISUPERTALENT/1276.jpg

[wallyb]

I was sooo happy to hear the CA news; my undies have been in a bunch about Amendment 2 here in FL, so I'm always glad to see that some states aren't as backward as we are. I was listening to the Neal Boortz radio show, and he was sparring with a caller who claimed to be for gay unions but who didn't want them to be called "marriage." It was hilarious...Neal kept asking him why, and he kept saying "Because marriage is between a man and a woman." Then Neal would say, "Well, why is that?" and the caller would say, "Well, just because it IS." Don't people realize that definitions are fluid and can be changed? Maybe it meant that before, but why can't we expand it now to include any loving couple wishing to make a commitment? "Because" is NOT a good enough answer. I wish people like that would see that they make themselves look like idiots using a logic that intelligent people stop using somewhere around the age of 10.

inkkognito - thanks for coming over - and for the suport :flower3:
I see you all the time over at the cruise board-
Can I ask - Why does everything over there see to degenerate into an argument?
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/wallyb3/hammer1kh1.gif
It's so funny - you'd never expect it -
but some of the most benign topics devolve
into some :scared: heated debate.

[inkkognito]

inkkognito - thanks for coming over - and for the suport :flower3:
I see you all the time over at the cruise board-
Can I ask - Why does everything over there see to degenerate into an argument?
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f241/wallyb3/hammer1kh1.gif
It's so funny - you'd never expect it -
but some of the most benign topics devolve
into some :scared: heated debate.
I've noticed that lately too on the cruise board. I'm not even posting there as much as usual because the most innocuous statements turn into a bloody battle. Who would have thought that a question about tossing a message in a bottle would have gotten so nasty that the thread got locked? And can you believe the "peeing off the verandah" thread is STILL going on? Oh, well, makes for good entertainment anyway.

[wallyb]

I've noticed that lately too on the cruise board. I'm not even posting there as much as usual because the most innocuous statements turn into a bloody battle. Who would have thought that a question about tossing a message in a bottle would have gotten so nasty that the thread got locked? And can you believe the "peeing off the verandah" thread is STILL going on? Oh, well, makes for good entertainment anyway.

And the not liking Palo one is not very pretty too.

[inkkognito]

And the not liking Palo one is not very pretty too.
And I did my part to make it even less pretty by posting the photo of hackepeter. ;)