California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[RandomGuy]

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
47 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough subs ute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are en led to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"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.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state cons ution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "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 Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the cons ution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
-------------------

link

WHEEEEE!!!! I don't have a lot invested in this either way, but find the whole thing interesting drama.

countdown to Xray or gtownspur saying something mean and over the top... 3...2... 1...

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, my objections to "gay marriage" are more moral, theological, and philosophical than they are political. If some judges think they have the power, and the responsibility, to overturn 6 millennia of human history that says marriage is hetero, and the people agree, then politically speaking, that's their call to make.

I am concerned, though, that the will of the people is not being respected here. How many democratically legislated laws against gay "marriage," or specifically defining what marriage is, have been struck down by the courts?

[RichardSimmons]

This is great news!!!

[PixelPusher]

Yeah, my objections to "gay marriage" are more moral, theological, and philosophical than they are political. If some judges think they have the power, and the responsibility, to overturn 6 millennia of human history that says marriage is hetero, and the people agree, then politically speaking, that's their call to make.

I am concerned, though, that the will of the people is not being respected here. How many democratically legislated laws against gay "marriage," or specifically defining what marriage is, have been struck down by the courts?

Marriage has had several definitions in the past 6000 years, many of them involving polygamy and women defined as property.

But please, enlighten us as to how two people of the same sex being married will destroy the remaining 50% of marriages that haven't already resulted in divorce?

[Don Quixote]

Yeah, you're right. Marriage has certainly evolved somewhat over the history of civilization. The ancient Hebrews, for instance actually had three classes of marriage, or at least ways in which a man could legally ... make whoopie.

But the notion of monogamous hetero marriage goes back a long way too, and its not exclusively Christian, or Western for that matter. But in the West, anyway, marriage has always been monogamous and hetero, at least since the Roman Empire. And, no matter what strictures or conditions we might want to put on it, it has never been sexual.

But, like I said, my objections to sexual "marriage" is more theological and philosophical than political. If the people want it (they mostly don't), then it should be legal.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, my objections to "gay marriage" are more moral, theological, and philosophical than they are political. If some judges think they have the power, and the responsibility, to overturn 6 millennia of human history that says marriage is hetero, and the people agree, then politically speaking, that's their call to make.

I am concerned, though, that the will of the people is not being respected here. How many democratically legislated laws against gay "marriage," or specifically defining what marriage is, have been struck down by the courts?

What if the "will of the people" turns out to have a majority view in one state that such a thing should be legalized and codified?

All it takes is ONE state to set up the laws, and all the others HAVE to recognize such unions.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable to me that such a thing will happen in my lifetime. I think the debate should be less about "yes or no", but more about "how".

As I said in the OP, I don't have any strong feelings either way, I'm just calling it like I see it.

[Don Quixote]

This is great news!!!

Mr. Simmons! A New Orleans native! Good to hear from you!

I'll have you know that your alma mater, Brother Martin High School on Elysian Fields, has fixed up their campus rather nicely. You should come and visit sometime.

Bring Ellen Degeneres, too.

[Don Quixote]

What if the "will of the people" turns out to have a majority view in one state that such a thing should be legalized and codified?

All it takes is ONE state to set up the laws, and all the others HAVE to recognize such unions.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable to me that such a thing will happen in my lifetime. I think the debate should be less about "yes or no", but more about "how".

As I said in the OP, I don't have any strong feelings either way, I'm just calling it like I see it.

It does seem inevitable -- but I'm not sure if it actually is. As far as I know, only 2 states have actually passed legislation for gay "marriage," Vermont and Hawaii. And Massachusetts? Every other state that's voted on it, either by referendum or in the legislature, has denied it. So the gay "marriage" movement still has a long hill to climb.

Your concern, though, about one state passing it, and other states denying it, is valid. This is the reasoning behind the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is not too different from the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton. Because of this dynamic, opponents of gay "marriage" feel they must raise it to the federal level.

At this point, though, I view it more as a court-imposed faux marriage than anything else. Still, if the people want it ...

[PixelPusher]

But the notion of monogamous hetero marriage goes back a long way too, and its not exclusively Christian, or Western for that matter. But in the West, anyway, marriage has always been monogamous and hetero, at least since the Roman Empire. And, no matter what strictures or conditions we might want to put on it, it has never been sexual.

As I recall, Paul actively discouraged marriage in his letters to the early Christian churches.

...something about Christ's return being emminent, so there was no need.

[Don Quixote]

No ... that would be an incorrect reading of 1 Corinthians 7:7-9. Indeed, verse 28 says people who marry have not sinned. The overall point of this rather complicated passage is that marriage, while good and a privilege, may be given up for the sake of serving God and the church. I have a few friends and colleagues who have done just that -- they are called to be single. (God be with them.)

Actually, there's a bigger point in I Cor 7 -- Paul is saying that there are things in life bigger and more important than marriage. If you're already married, stay married, and enjoy fellowship with God in your marriage. And if you're single, that's good too, for you can serve Him in your single-ness.

[JoeChalupa]

What if the "will of the people" turns out to have a majority view in one state that such a thing should be legalized and codified?

All it takes is ONE state to set up the laws, and all the others HAVE to recognize such unions.

Sooner or later it seems inevitable to me that such a thing will happen in my lifetime. I think the debate should be less about "yes or no", but more about "how".

As I said in the OP, I don't have any strong feelings either way, I'm just calling it like I see it.

I agree with for the most part. When I think of marriage I naturally think of it as between a man and a woman and I don't really think I should need to add "to a woman" each time I say I'm married. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
But you know now a days if you go to a party and just happen to find yourself in a conversation with a bunch of guys you don't know and the topic of "who is married" comes up and everyone says yes or no and then everyone wonders.."is he married to a man or a woman?"...so you blurt out.."to a woman" to make your case and then they all wonder why you felt you had to say it which leaves an awkward feeling until the subject quickly turns to sports.

[Don Quixote]

Marriage has had several definitions in the past 6000 years, many of them involving polygamy and women defined as property.

But please, enlighten us as to how two people of the same sex being married will destroy the remaining 50% of marriages that haven't already resulted in divorce?

As for the second part of your post, I'm not really saying that a few gay "marriages" will destroy straight marriages. I think straights have done a fine job of tearing down the ins ution themselves. As a student of scripture, and a minister, I honor marriage and actively counsel people to avoid all kinds of sexual immorality -- not only sexuality, but heterosexual misconduct as well.

Back to the secular sphere ... we're wrong if we try to treat gay "marriage" as some sort of universal civil right. The state has always regulated marriage -- we cannot just marry whomever we want. We cannot marry first cousins (in many states), we cannot marry someone else's spouse, we cannot marry more than one person. And in some places, we cannot marry people with certain diseases. So we restrict who can marry whom all the time.

I don't mean to say that these cases = sexual couples, but I mean to show that marriage is, indeed, regulated.

I can go into the continuum implied between marriage and childrearing, but that's enough for now.

[JoeChalupa]

No, keep going.

[Ivan]

Don, does this mean that gays now get to come to your house and rape you? If not, why do you give a ?

[Don Quixote]

I am not an ethical egoist, that's why.

I care about things beyond my front yard. If you don't care, then I would imagine that you're not interested in the conversation.

[Trainwreck2100]

But please, enlighten us as to how two people of the same sex being married will destroy the remaining 50% of marriages that haven't already resulted in divorce?

That 50% is gonna drop real quick in Cali

[DarkReign]

Look over here! Look over here!














...pay no attention to the man beind the curtain...

[DarkReign]

TW, Ive seen a lot of your avatars.

Thats the best one ever, IMO.

[Don Quixote]

No, keep going.

Okay ... childrearing is implicitly part of marriage. It's generally assumed. Of course, you have infertile couples or couples who marry in old age, but they are the exception. (It's never good policy to use the exception to make the rules.)

In a very small nuts -- gay "marriage" breaks the natural continuity that runs from marriage to childbirth to childrearing. Even if the gays are able and willing to lovingly raise kids (many are), they must do so by introducing other people into the reproductive matrix (surrogacy, test-tube babies, etc.). Furthermore, giving them adoptive kids raises a ton of ethical concerns, too, the largest of which is gay couples' inherent inability to give children BOTH a father and a mother. It's impossible for them.

Lastly, advocates of gay "marriage" say that it will allow gays to live together as couples. I reply that they already can. Nothing is stopping them. If one partner wants to, he can even write his partner into a living will and draw up some sort of civil union. I have no (political) problem with this. But, at least, the burden should be on advocates of gay marriage to show that their position benefits society,and so far they have failed.

[Don Quixote]

Okay, that's it for now.

As long as the courts are in favor of gay marriage, though, it looks like it will be the law of the land.

[Ivan]

I am a phoebe

/end thread

[Don Quixote]

I'll discuss ethics and politics with the adults, then.

Run along now.

[BradLohaus]

The polygamists are getting a raw deal.

I don't know why the state needs to be involved in marriage anymore. Given that half of all marriages end in divorce, I would imagine that the amount of <18 year olds that are being raised out of wedlock is somewhere in the 40s% as it is. You want community property? Form an LLP; if you can't hammer out the details, then you shouldn't be together long term.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

See, this is where people's religion should butt out. I don't care what the bible says on marriage. Why should your beliefs prevent two people from doing what makes them happy?

The will of the people should not serve to deprive someone else of something like being able to marry, which IMO should be a god given right (if god exists). Why some people are so intent on denying others their right to be happy is beyond me.

[BonnerDynasty]

Do State Supreme Courts often veto the will of the people?