Calif. Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

(San Francisco, California) The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Prop 22, the voter approved initiative used to block same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

The court also said that California's domestic partnership law is not a good enough substitute for marriage.

The 4-3 ruling. written by Chief Justice Ron George paves the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry once the ruling is officially published by the court - in about 30 days.

Once that is done same-sex couples in California will be able to obtain civil marriage licenses.

"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," George wrote for the majority on the mostly Republican appointed court.

The ruling said that churches and other religious institutions will not have to recognize or perform ceremonies for these civil marriages.

The ruling does not extend to federal rights and benefits extended to married couples.

Large crowds began gathering outside the court early Thursday morning.

A wild cheer went up as the ruling was announced, drowning out gasps from opponents of same-sex marriage who also gathered in front of the court.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) said that he accepts the ruling of the court.

"Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling," a statement from the governor said.

"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.

"As of today, the right to marry is now guaranteed to anyone," said Kate Kendell, executive director of National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The case dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally.

The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom's actions.  The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.

Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.

In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling.

In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

Kramer stayed his ruling while the state appealed.

In October, 2006, the California Court of Appeal in a split decision overturned Kramer's ruling and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Thursday's ruling sets the stage for a battle over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is likely to appear on the November ballot.

A coalition of conservative groups, under the banner 'Protect Marriage' , have submitted more than required 694,354 signatures to qualify. The signatures are being verified.

Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that if an initiative to ban gay marriage qualifies for the November ballot, he's prepared to fight it.

He made the commitment at a convention of Log Cabin Republicans, the nation's largest gay Republican group.

Schwarzenegger has previously vetoed bills that would have legalized gay marriage. Both times Schwarzenegger said that the courts or the people through a plebiscite should decide the issue.



Last edited by Rainwalker99 on Thu 15 May, 2008 7:56 pm; edited 1 time in total

This whole topic is still in the "I don't get it" category for me.  While I can understand that everybody wants equal rights, I wouldn't saddle anybody with the trappings of marriage law (along with the fine accoutrements of divorce law).    A piece of paper that costs you money now and may really cost you later; besides, if a relationship isn't adequate enough without the paperwork, I'm not sure how much the paper adds to it.

The only possible benefit for some that I can think of is where you need the formal marriage to extend health care benefits provided by an employer.  Absent that application, any other benefits you can think of?  One doesn't need marriage to leave assets to a partner after death.

Bob wrote:

Absent that application, any other benefits you can think of?

Yes:  having the same right to fuck up your life as straight people do.

homintern is on your IGNORE list.

When I left for work this morning at 6:30 am there was a whole slew of media vans outside the State Courhouse where I caught the bus.  I was wondering what was going on.  It didn't hit me till much later that this decision was going to be announced today.  To be honest I didn't give it much hope of passing a Republican appointed court ...but there you have it.

The news feed from the local rag :  State Supreme Court says same-sex couples have right to marry

Note to Bob:  

bob wrote:

...Absent that application, any other benefits you can think of?....

I'm going to be looking into it closely.  Might help me get boyfriend into US, at least for a visit.
Honestly I haven't been keeping up with the issue that much since I hadn't had much hope of it passing anyway.  I think there are Federal benefits re: taxes but not sure how it all plays into the Defense of Marriage Act (thanks a lot Bill Clinton).

Health benefits for a partner are nothing to sneeze at!  Also many States in the US have an inheritance tax if the heir is not a child or parent or a spouse. And if marriage is not such a big deal, then why do straight people want to marry and want gays to be denied this privilege.  Yes, I don't get it either.

francois wrote:

then why do straight people want to marry

As I understand it, getting married involves the three rings.
First, the engagement ring.
Second, the diamond wedding ring.
Third, the suffering.....