I just tried to legally apply for the right to post this article on my blog, I think it works fine. Here it is. I am very jaded about such law because it feel like we have seen it all before. Is this truly historic? Other states don’t have to recognize it, other states that do recognize marriages in other states can change their laws, now Jerry Brown and the governator will have to figure out what to do, do they act like they follow the law or do they follow special interests, or do they actually jsut do what they think is right. Please tell me why this matters any more than the previous marriages in SF and all the other cities, and marriage in MA. I want it to, but I don’t feel it.
Associated Press
[Powered by iCopyright] E-Mail | Print | Post | More> | Get Photos | Republish
May 16, 2008
California’s top court legalizes gay marriage
By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer
California’s Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation’s most populous state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.
Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.
“Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law,” declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: “We’re going to get married. No Tupperware, please.”
A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, long the center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.
“I’ve been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment,” he said.
By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters planned to serve “wedding cake” at an evening celebration.
James Dobson — chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, which has spent thousands of dollars to get the measure on the ballot — called the ruling an outrage.
“It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. … Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny,” he said in an e-mailed statement.
In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
“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,” Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.
Massachusetts in 2004 became the first, and so far only, state to legalize gay marriage; more than 9,500 couples have taken advantage of the law. But the California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state’s size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.
California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.
“It’s about human dignity. It’s about human rights. It’s about time in California,” San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. “As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It’s inevitable. This door’s wide open now. It’s going to happen, whether you like it or not.”
Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays nationwide are likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, an attorney who worked on the case.
The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most states do not recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the federal government.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
“We’re obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization.
Opponents of gay marriage could also ask the high court to reconsider. If the court rejects such a request, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices’ opinions to become final.
Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office had argued to uphold the ban, said Brown will work with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state agencies to implement the ruling.
The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four thousand wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.
Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.
Thursday’s ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race, as well as state and congressional contests in California and beyond, by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large numbers.
A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator “doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.” The campaigns of Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
Ten states now offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples — in most cases, domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the past few years, the courts in New York, New Jersey and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage.
Outside the San Francisco courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news of the decision spread. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, “Pali, will you marry me?”
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.
Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state’s 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.
The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat.
In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
California’s secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot.
Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
___
Associated Press writers Terence Chea, Jason Dearen, Juliana Barbassa and Evelyn Nieves in San Francisco and Liz Sidoti in Washington contributed to this report.
Press Association
[iCopyright] © 2008 Associated Press. Displayed by permission. All rights reserved.
You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D90MISFO1 into any web browser. Press Association and Associated Press logos are registered trademarks of Press Association. The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of iCopyright, Inc.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
[...] The Impudent Observer - Global Liberal Issues wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt I just tried to legally apply for the right to post this article on my blog, I think it works fine. Here it is. I am very jaded about such law because it feel like we have seen it all before. Is this truly historic? Other states don’t have to recognize it, other states that do recognize marriages in other states can change their laws, now Jerry Brown and the governator will have to figure out what to do, do they act like they follow the law or do they follow special interests, or do they actual [...]
Why? Because Ellen Degeneres says so, that’s why. *eyeroll* She’s getting married and everything. (heh heh). Let’s hope this one sticks. Even if now we only have bookended this basic right in our country, perhaps its a start? perhaps not. but it demonstrates some percentage of the population is coming ’round. sigh.
je m’ennui de toi
Por quoi, je ne comprendre pas.
It won’t be historic until gay marriage is recognized nationally, following Massachusetts and California, but it is important. Slavery wasn’t abolished in a day and subsequent miscengenation laws were not overturned until mixed-race couples slowly chipped away at the system, finally revealing/convincing reasonable people in power that such laws are unconstitutional. Those laws weren’t overturned until 1967 — that’s just 2 years before I was born, though my parents were good Chicanos, only mating with their own kind. People here in California are really excited, and while lots of people at work are talking about marrying their partners, some are also excited at how this ruling stands a good chance of really energizing activists, and Lindell Bruce, my colleague in the English department, in his 60’s is ready to get out there and fight for what so many of us know is right. We can’t allow a ballot measure to ammend the constitution — what a crock!
I know but MA and CA were supposed to be catalysts, were they? All the cities that allowed gay marriage for a short time, what did that change? I’m not sure a whole lot. It seems that there is a lot of acceptance on many levels of gay people in the US on a personal level, even on the right, but the public persona both the left and right feel “required” to put on includes state sanctioned inequity. That is what I think needs to be changed. Here in Europe the big critique of the US is its puritanism, taking such moralistic stances that are completely at odds with how its own people actually live and act. On one level many people do accept people once they get to know them and feel reasonably comfortable around them but at the same time still feel compelled to say “but I don’t believe in that, etc” What does that say, obedience to dogma is more important than being honest, I don’t know, except that I am rambling, I hope you are right.
According to news articles I’ve read, the anti-gay forces are already starting a movement to change California law to read that a marriage can only be between one man and one woman.
Also, according to Kansas Sebastian (http://www.opendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=D181860), who lives in California, Swarzeneger(?) is going to abide by the ruling until they can change the state constitution.
I’m not sure how to make a link in a comment. Sorry.
Here is how to make a link, with html
Link to the above article in Bob’s comment
[...] [...]
Owen, I think understand how you feel, and you raise a great point about how it seems that obedience to dogma is more important than being honest. It does seem really backwards, but it seems that there is a pattern for the majority of Americans to be truly on board with equality for a group of people who have not been afforded such equality until a law takes hold and produces important change for the marginalized group for the dominant group to realize that they are no longer a threat to the status quo and/or actually regular folk like everyone else. Why should it take a law to humanize a marginalized group in the eyes of the dominant one?
Sadly, this is my reason for believing the ruling is significant.
I just had an epiphany, I hate that word too, about this mess and this is what I’m going to say next time it comes up.
It is hard to dispute the fact that not allowing same sex couples to get married is discrimination. That is why some states passed laws defining a marriage as between a man and a woman, because without this new law, the fundamental discrimination would eventually be challenged, and same sex couples would win the right to marry. It is too obviously discrimination. I feel that is the foundation to the matter, the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law but at the same time the law prevents some groups from accessing some rights.
I’m going to say something I never thought I’d say. Okay Mr and Mrs Religious Conservative, so you say “I’m not against gay people and I’m not homophobic, I just think that marriage is between a man and a woman,” fine. Do you really people in equality? If so then you should be on the front lines fighting for Civil Unions, civil unions that give exactly the same rights but that are performed by a justice of the peace at a courthouse and not in a church. Not allowing same sex couples the right to marry is a clear case of discrimination, are you against discrimination? What are you willing to do about it? If you are not going to fight for real civil unions then you are a bigot and want to continue inequality and yes you are in fact homophobic.
I hear people saying that they are not homophobic, it’s just that their religion, blah blah blah. Fine, I’m not religious, I don’t care if I get to call it a marriage, I just want the very same rights you have. Make people put their money where their mouth is, otherwise their true agenda is revealed.
I don’t know if that was clear. I know civil unions are not the perfect answer but it will at least take away the religious objection, or at least it will no longer provide an excuse for people to mask their real objections.
Maybe more clearly, you say you are against discrimination, great, if we don’t call it marriage and call it civil unions, will you support it, oh so you are in favor of discrimination. Which is it?
Many of my friends are not content with civil unions because it creates a differentiation and allows *believers* to impose their beliefs upon *unbelievers*; impacting them with a distinction that is unnecessary. This to me compares to *separate but equal* … where people tried to justify segregation with the fact that both parties would be getting basically the same outcome…blech. Its a hard one, I’m no supporter of marriage anyway as I feel it is a religious thing and if I were ever to decide to be married - a justice of the peace would be my choice. Maybe we should outlaw marriage and just have civil unions for all.
I’m not a big fan of civil unions but it is a compromise I’d be willing to make. But I agree I would prefer to go to a system where the civil ceremony is the one that is binding and it you want to have a religious ceremony you do that after, it’s kind of like that here in France. I think it is so strange that some people think that marriage is inherently a religious ceremony, when you want to get divorced, do you go to the church, no you go to city hall and file, so after all the civil part is the binding part.