Califoria Supreme Court Rules on Gay Marriage
- Thread starter rpmdfw
- Start date
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.
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.
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."
"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."
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.
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.
From the concurring opinion:
"In Lockyer, this court did not decide whether the California
Constitutions 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.
"In Lockyer, this court did not decide whether the California
Constitutions 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
<font color=red>I feel similarly about the cha-cha
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,872
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.
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.
TuckandStuiesMom
<font color=darkorchid>Age. Fac ut gaudeam<br><fon
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 2,579
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.
Melora
Disney Dreaming
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Messages
- 2,556
rpmdfw
<font color=red>I feel similarly about the cha-cha
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,872
This is great!
Now Mario and I can get hitched!
Caliente!
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
<font color=blue>Love My Stella-rella!<br><font co
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2006
- Messages
- 10,318
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!"
RickinNYC
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 7,870
I don't get it. . What icon?
-
Disney Debate: Do the USA Disney Parks Have Enough Seating?
-
First 3 Nights of Mickey's Not-So-Scary Halloween Party SOLD OUT
-
The Hottest Spots in Walt Disney World That Desperately Need More Shade
-
New Photos Show Demo of Muppets Courtyard in Hollywood Studios at Walt Disney World
-
NEW Lil' Boo Backpack & Mel's Die-In HHN Merch Now Available
-
Are We Spoiling the Disney Magic Before We Even Arrive?
-
NEW Star Wars & Spider-Man LEGO Sets Hit Disney Store's Virtual Shelves
Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE
