Question
•
Law & Courts
AS POSTED IN THE AP
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 substitute 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 entitled 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 constitution.
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 constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.
Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.
_PLEASE REALIZE THIS IS AN AP ARTICLE.__
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 substitute 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 entitled 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 constitution.
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 constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.
Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.
_PLEASE REALIZE THIS IS AN AP ARTICLE.__
Loading...-
Answered No
61% is the number of people who VOTED. Remember that the gay community is very, very active politically. Polls TODAY, when more people are pro-gay-delusional (as opposed to tolerant). More than 70% are opposed to gay marriage. This is part of the "gay agenda", which is primarily arranged as an executioner's axe against religious freedom. Many of their pursued goals are anti-Christ, anti-family and anti-freedom.
There was a prophecy in 1857: "One day, in the future of America, the cry of Liberty will become the hiss of the serpent." -
Answered Yes
But then I voted against the ban so I am very happy about it being overturned. The majority should not be allowed to force their views on the minority. My heterosexual marriage will not fall about because a few homosexuals get married. Anyone who thinks so is just plain wrong. -
Answered Yes
It is right, because the Supreme Court is not set up to be a Democracy where majority rules. It is obligated to interpret the law.
Now, for Matty 507, I am white, straight, upper middle class. Your statements and responses to others are very vulgar which depicts your apparent upbringing and social-class standing. I am sure you do not understand how gays can revitalize and improve a neighborhood that is run down, as this is foreign to your circle. I also must point out that there is no fortune 500 company that is "private". Only closely held corporations with a limited number of shareholders is "private". All large (fortune 500) corps. are publicly held by thousands of shareholders from all walks of life. So, using your distorted logic, they would represent the feeling of the majority. Equality for all. If you can learn and grow, your bigotry and inflammatory language will subside and possibly a decent human being will emerge. I suggest you start by realizing the fact that you and I are not empowered to judge the human race or any of it's makeup. Some supreme power has that right, not you and I. I really hope that you can at least learn to communicate properly so that it isn't so apparent that you lack so much. -
I love this country. You are able to have your opinion, and I am able to have mine. Isn't that great. You can believe that they are normal, and the rest of the world can believe that they are abnormal. Im quite certain I don't know how just gays revitalize their neighborhoods, as Im sure normal Americans don't either. To somehow assimilate that only gays improve neighborhoods is quite a stretch. Your attempt to place Gays on some sort of Neighborhood cleanup pedestal is yet another way people like you try to justify these twisted abnormal people and try to force Americans to have to accept homosexuality. America does not accept homosexuality. If they want to play dress up and play marriage in the United States, it will have to be done in the dark shameful crevaces of America. When the 2008 election rolls around, we will once again see in California, that Americans do not have to accept homosexuals. You, my straight, white upperclass American buddy will have to come to grips with that.
In this country, we recognize that marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman. In this country that is the law and interpreted as law. I think America in the future could accept gays. If, and only when you can drag 2 gays, place them in a locked room, and nine months later, three people come out. Until that happens, feel free to continue painting this wonderful picture that gays roam the earth, touch a neighborhood with a fairy's wand (No pun intended) and sprinkle the neighborhoods with increas...I love this country. You are able to have your opinion, and I am able to have mine. Isn't that great. You can believe that they are normal, and the rest of the world can believe that they are abnormal. Im quite certain I don't know how just gays revitalize their neighborhoods, as Im sure normal Americans don't either. To somehow assimilate that only gays improve neighborhoods is quite a stretch. Your attempt to place Gays on some sort of Neighborhood cleanup pedestal is yet another way people like you try to justify these twisted abnormal people and try to force Americans to have to accept homosexuality. America does not accept homosexuality. If they want to play dress up and play marriage in the United States, it will have to be done in the dark shameful crevaces of America. When the 2008 election rolls around, we will once again see in California, that Americans do not have to accept homosexuals. You, my straight, white upperclass American buddy will have to come to grips with that.
In this country, we recognize that marriage is between 1 man & 1 woman. In this country that is the law and interpreted as law. I think America in the future could accept gays. If, and only when you can drag 2 gays, place them in a locked room, and nine months later, three people come out. Until that happens, feel free to continue painting this wonderful picture that gays roam the earth, touch a neighborhood with a fairy's wand (No pun intended) and sprinkle the neighborhoods with increased property values. If that makes them happy in their abnormal lives, than Im for it. Sprinkle Sprinkle(less) -
Answered Yes
There was a time when 95% of the South wanted slavery. Was it right of the mean old government to make a law banning it. Come on, people's rights are at stake! Why should 61% of the population make a law that doesn't affect them in any way, but limits my rights as a citizen of the United States? The arguments against gay marriage are... well there are no valid arguments. -
DUH??? The 10 % rule is an understatement of those that participtaed in the census poll. If we are, as you state 5 or 1%, then we have one hell of a kick. To have changed marriage laws in 2 states, over turned the Texas sodomy law, getting partner benefits at many of the top 500, and also, local companies. Damn, we are strong!
-
Um... where the F did that come from? Nobody is asking for special rights, we just want the SAME rights as everyone else. As far as leaving the country- my ancesters have fought in every single war this country has had, from the Revolution on down... I have just as much, if not more, right to be here as you.
-
And all of your ancestors are turning in their graves and think you are a disgrace. Gays have the same rights as everyone else. Noones stopping them from ramming each other in the ass are they? There are no laws against not allowing gays to suck each other off. So get over yourself. You want America to have to accept you and America does not. You want to lead an abnormal lifestyle full of sick and twisted perversion, go for it. But America doesn't have to, nor will we, be forced to accept it.
-
Well why dont you enlighten everyone on Sodahead and tell us what rights you dont have. We would be interested to know what rights you dont have living as a fag. Please share with the rest of us. Calling people names and saying you will get the same rights doesn't really do your cause justice, if you cant tell us the simple rights that you dont have thet normal people have.
-
With you, I am not even trying to do "my cause" justice. You are powerless and I have no reason to try and convince you of anything. The rights I am referring to are having my partner get my SS benefits when I die, etc... Now, if you don't mind - again, you are an idiot.
-
It is right, because the Supreme Court is not set up to be a Democracy where majority rules. It is obligated to interpret the law.
Now, for Matty 507, I am white, straight, upper middle class. Your statements and responses to others are very vulgar which depicts your apparent upbringing and social-class standing. I am sure you do not understand how gays can revitalize and improve a neighborhood that is run down, as this is foreign to your circle. I also must point out that there is no fortune 500 company that is "private". Only closely held corporations with a limited number of shareholders is "private". All large (fortune 500) corps. are publicly held by thousands of shareholders from all walks of life. So, using your distorted logic, they would represent the feeling of the majority. Equality for all. If you can learn and grow, your bigotry and inflammatory language will subside and possibly a decent human being will emerge. I suggest you start by realizing the fact that you and I are not empowered to judge the human race or any of it's makeup. Some supreme power has that right, not you and I. I really hope that you can at least learn to communicate properly so that it isn't so apparent that you lack so much. -
It is right, because the Supreme Court is not set up to be a Democracy where majority rules. It is obligated to interpret the law.
Now, for Matty 507, I am white, straight, upper middle class. Your statements and responses to others are very vulgar which depicts your apparent upbringing and social-class standing. I am sure you do not understand how gays can revitalize and improve a neighborhood that is run down, as this is foreign to your circle. I also must point out that there is no fortune 500 company that is "private". Only closely held corporations with a limited number of shareholders is "private". All large (fortune 500) corps. are publicly held by thousands of shareholders from all walks of life. So, using your distorted logic, they would represent the feeling of the majority. Equality for all. If you can learn and grow, your bigotry and inflammatory language will subside and possibly a decent human being will emerge. I suggest you start by realizing the fact that you and I are not empowered to judge the human race or any of it's makeup. Some supreme power has that right, not you and I. I really hope that you can at least learn to communicate properly so that it isn't so apparent that you lack so much.
Answered Yes
Those who argue that the people have a right to vote on the matter of same-sex marriage misunderstand what this is about. This is not about "what the majority of people want." It is about rights as defined by our existing and long-accepted laws.
The recognition of civil rights is not traditionally put to the people. Rights are given, not removed, by the Legislature. They are interpreted and protected by the courts.
Would those with disabilities have free access? Would women vote? Would we have mixed-race marriages? Would African-Americans have the right to vote? Indeed, would they even be free if the decision had been put to the people? The advancement of civil rights - the rights of women, of people of color, of the physically challenged - has come about through the testing of our laws in our courts.
Every one of these topics in their day met with great opposition. How many of these rights would have been granted if put to the voter of the day?
If the people were asked to vote on these matters in the days in which the issue was initially addressed, when the topics were so emotionally charged, these rights and protections probably would not have been granted. Decades later, we see how obvious these rights are. Extending these rights to those previously denied them did not threaten or u...
Those who argue that the people have a right to vote on the matter of same-sex marriage misunderstand what this is about. This is not about "what the majority of people want." It is about rights as defined by our existing and long-accepted laws.
The recognition of civil rights is not traditionally put to the people. Rights are given, not removed, by the Legislature. They are interpreted and protected by the courts.
Would those with disabilities have free access? Would women vote? Would we have mixed-race marriages? Would African-Americans have the right to vote? Indeed, would they even be free if the decision had been put to the people? The advancement of civil rights - the rights of women, of people of color, of the physically challenged - has come about through the testing of our laws in our courts.
Every one of these topics in their day met with great opposition. How many of these rights would have been granted if put to the voter of the day?
If the people were asked to vote on these matters in the days in which the issue was initially addressed, when the topics were so emotionally charged, these rights and protections probably would not have been granted. Decades later, we see how obvious these rights are. Extending these rights to those previously denied them did not threaten or undermine our society; to the contrary, we are stronger for it. The same is true for the matter before us today. The right of two people of the same sex to marry is not a matter for the populous to decide.
The Supreme Court of California has tested the state's laws and has come to a clear and reasoned judgment. Indeed the purpose of our judicial system is to protect the rights of those whose voice is not yet loud enough, to guarantee that they too have the same rights that are enjoyed by the majority. To this end, the Court acted exactly as they should have. Marriage is a right - a right available to all our citizens regardless of the gender of the parties.
Contrary to the inevitable claims that this judgment was made by "activist judges," they have not been activist or revolutionary. In fact, their ruling stems from a conservative letter-of-the-law interpretation of our constitution.