Log In | Register
19 Comments
PrintImages 
(showing 1 of 16 photos)
(showing 1 of 16 photos)advertisement
SAN FRANCISCO — 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.
© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
7 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Lisa Leff's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Queer Agendas
- Regions: United States , Jordan , San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose
 | California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage | The New York Times | Thu May 15 | 1 |
| California high court set to rule on same-sex marriage case---CNN JUST SAID THE COURT RULED AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. --But NY TIMES SAYS IT APPROVED GAY MARRIAGE | CNN | Wed May 14 | 69 |
| California ban on same-sex marriage struck down | CNN | Fri May 16 | 0 |
| Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage due | The San Francisco Chronicle | Thu May 15 | 13 |
| California's gay couples should marry fast. Voters could overturn the Supreme Court ruling in November | Slate | Fri May 16 | 3 |
- Public Discussion (19)
- Queer Agendas
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
6.9
3.7
2.3
{"commentId":1803744,"authorDomain":"LarryH"}
Here is a sample of comments.
Please, please let the 'Rats campaign for this over the summer...
5 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:21:59 AM by absalom01 (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)There is a constitutional amendment in the works for voters to vote on in November, which could overturn this ruling. But California may be too socially liberal to overturn this court order. Stay tuned.
6 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:22:40 AM by Dilbert San DiegoThe militant homosexualists and their communist allies have now forced us to go to the labor and expense of amending the California constitution to make it absolutely clear that marriage will not be redefined out of existence in this state. So be it. The amendment will pass in a landslide.
8 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:23:00 AM by Argus (Obama: All turban and no goats.)"... domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion." 10 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:23:22 AM by NormsRevenge
As a long time California resident, I knew this disgusting day was coming. California was once a model state, the model in every respect for the other states of this country — fiscally, in education, and its politics. It was clean state, free from mega-perversion, copious numbers of illegal immigrants, and we had politicians that gave a damn about something other than their personal empowerment obtained through pandering and runaway spending. Actually, I am surprised the vote was so close, given the runaway PC crap and liberalism that has turned California into a socialist dung heap. All this done too, without the regard for the legal nightmare that this move is going to make — as usual, ONLY LAWYERS WILL PROFIT from this. Meanwhile you will have to explain to your young children, how Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith can be man and "wife" — Actually, I am headed for San Francisco now, to marry my dog.
14 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:26:02 AM by EagleUSAThis is probably the worst thing that could have happened for the liberals in this election. While it may not have the same deep impact as it did in 2004, there's no way this helps Obama or the Dems in this election and it provides fuel for such constitutional amendments in both California and Arizona and Florida that will be before the voters this year. Any conservative fuel on the fire will make the Dems worry. As for that fruitcake judge Ronald George, you've been living in Frisco, too long, Mr. Judicial Activist. You're such a fruit. 24 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:30:52 AM by No Dems 2004 (No Dems in 2008 either)
"This is probably the worst thing that could have happened for the liberals in this election."
Wishful thinking. The electorate do not separate same sex marriage with dems, look at 2006. Most dems running will say they are either neutral, for civil arrangements or against it then appoint judges to do the dirty work. Any Constitutional Amendment is dead in the water because the GOP are milquetoast.
43 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:40:42 AM by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)Pathetic isn't it? Here in Long Beach we have to endure the "Long Beach Pride" festival this weekend.
Can you imagine - a whole city officially taking PRIDE in sodomy? 52 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:50:58 AM by ChurchillspiritRonald M. George, (since 1991), Chief Justice (elevated in 1996) Marvin R. Baxter, (since 1991), Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, (since 1996), Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, (since 2006), Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice
The Court currently has six Republicans appointees (George, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan) and one Democrat (Moreno). 54 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:52:43 AM by CounterCounterCulture
[Has McCain commented on it?] Dunno. The part I like is that he doesn't really have to...the last thing the Donks need is having this issue raise its head again in the middle of a rocky campaign. They are on the wrong side of this very emotional issue, and it's gonna hurt them. And if the constitutional amendment gets on the ballot, it will pass. So the liberals on the Cali supreme court get a smackdown, and Obama has to try to avoid getting mixed up with this. Cool, I say. 55 posted on Free Republic Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:53:32 AM by absalom01 (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)
{"commentId":1803744,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"LarryH"}
- 1 vote
#1 - Thu May 15, 2008 2:04 PM EDT{"commentId":1803849,"authorDomain":"LarryH"}
This 4 to 3 ruling is an outrage.
If the California Supreme Court can overturn this law, why can't they overturn the law on the age of consent too? This would free up police to go after real crime instead of chasing pedophiles who troll for and entice children in public parks or meet lonely youths on their sports teams or in their classrooms or in their Sunday school class.
{"commentId":1803849,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"LarryH"}
- 2 votes
#2 - Thu May 15, 2008 2:29 PM EDT{"commentId":1804341,"authorDomain":"jojo127"}
California is the 3rd largest state. Alaska is the first, followed by Texas. I thought these people fact-checked?
As for this ruling - it means nothing. There is always another appeal, always another way around the issue.
{"commentId":1804341,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"jojo127"}
#3 - Thu May 15, 2008 4:15 PM EDT{"commentId":1805108,"authorDomain":"tim-7"}
Why vote? Another example of the minority rules..... and California spearheading the charge in the lack of interest of the majority..... Apathy is the breading grounds for mediocrity.... be proud Californians..... be proud..... The peoples voice, once again, not being heard.....
{"commentId":1805108,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"tim-7"}
- 3 votes
#4 - Thu May 15, 2008 6:54 PM EDT{"commentId":1805131,"authorDomain":"cacsla"}
How Pathetic that Lesbians and Gays have to feel that they are Heterosexual...
I am embarrassed and ashamed of the Gay Coalition for thinking that Gays, Homosexuals, Trans-genders, and Lesbians should given the OK to be Heterosexuals. Domestic partnership isn't enough? What does it all evolve around money like most Californians do sitting in there joint purchase of homes, etc...
Just Pathetic!
{"commentId":1805131,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"cacsla"}
- 1 vote
#5 - Thu May 15, 2008 6:59 PM EDT{"commentId":1806059,"authorDomain":"billm"}
CAC,
A domestic partnership is not equivalent to marriage in many states- it offers less rights. An example of a right offered is the right to be financially responsible for your partner's debt in the event that she/he dies....hardly the same.
To quote Wikipedia, "the exact level of rights and responsibilities conferred by a domestic partnership varies widely from place to place".
Not the same!
{"commentId":1806059,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"billm"}
{"commentId":1805154,"authorDomain":"cacsla"}
And YES I AM ...for 40 years!
{"commentId":1805154,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"cacsla"}
#6 - Thu May 15, 2008 7:03 PM EDT{"commentId":1805306,"authorDomain":"tom-baker"}
Sick - I too liked California a few years back. When men were men and women were women. It is a sad and disgusting day. Our whole society has gone mad. i too will not vote for the first time in 60 years!!
{"commentId":1805306,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"tom-baker"}
#7 - Thu May 15, 2008 7:34 PM EDT{"commentId":1805584,"authorDomain":"Helterskelter78"}
In what way is California the BIGGEST state? I know the Alaska is the largest in terms of size and that Texas is the largest in terms of population. I was wondering if the editor of this article was stupid, lazy, or both.
Sorry to pick at something so slight, I'm not anti-gay or anything it just upsets me that no one checks the facts.
{"commentId":1805584,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"Helterskelter78"}
#8 - Thu May 15, 2008 8:36 PM EDT{"commentId":1805897,"authorDomain":"webxcreationz"}
Human rights???????What about the right and freedom of choice for polygamy. This is an outrage!! We live in the day and age of hypocrites and double standards.
{"commentId":1805897,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"webxcreationz"}
- 3 votes
#9 - Thu May 15, 2008 9:47 PM EDT{"commentId":1827903,"authorDomain":"jennak"}
You're right...polygamy should be legal to. We are grown people after all...we should be able to decide for ourselves.
{"commentId":1827903,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"jennak"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1806019,"authorDomain":"billm"}
We (gays and lesbians) have been paying taxes for your children to attend public school as well as paying all other taxes without the tax breaks and privileges given to heterosexual people. It's about time that discrimination was outlawed. California is a progressive state...if you don't like the ruling, then do us all a favor and move. By the way, whatever state that you move to will eventually make the same ruling. It's called progress people!
{"commentId":1806019,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"billm"}
- 1 vote
#10 - Thu May 15, 2008 10:16 PM EDT{"commentId":1806168,"authorDomain":"billm"}
Jeff,
I doubt that you could find more than 1 woman who would want to marry you, but if so, go ahead, who cares?
{"commentId":1806168,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"billm"}
#11 - Thu May 15, 2008 10:55 PM EDT{"commentId":1806432,"authorDomain":"bartning"}
Marriage is to continue to cycle according to a professor I had here who passed the Bar in SF. Moreover, it's unethical media and the courts didn't refer to the voter-approved propositions banning same-sex marriage here in California.
I attend the CSU school, San Francisco State, and people often refer to the matter there, but especially professors conveniently forget the voter-approved propositions against marriage of same-sex couples.
{"commentId":1806432,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"bartning"}
- 2 votes
#12 - Fri May 16, 2008 12:58 AM EDT{"commentId":1806460,"authorDomain":"bartning"}
Is California's top court trying to steer voters to the Republican camp? Haven't Republican governors appointed most of the justices on it? So far, their unethical decision overruling voters makes me want to vote for McCain rather than Obama, the latter whom I voted for in the primary.
{"commentId":1806460,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"bartning"}
- 1 vote
#13 - Fri May 16, 2008 1:16 AM EDT{"commentId":1806467,"authorDomain":"bartning"}
Marriage, like reproductive rights IMHO, need way more protection, not abuse like this decision causes.
{"commentId":1806467,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"bartning"}
- 2 votes
#14 - Fri May 16, 2008 1:19 AM EDT{"commentId":1827894,"authorDomain":"jennak"}
Get a clue people. The idea that homosexuality is wrong is a religious belief. (god or the bible or some church leader says it's wrong.) Not all religions agree however. If you don't use the religious argument that it's wrong then it's just because you don't like it. Everyone likes to scream equality until someone wants to do something they don't like. I can agree that the church has the right to ban them from marrying in their church but there is supposed to be a separation of church and state remember. The government has no right to force your religious beliefs on others. I'm so sick of people trying to tell everyone else how to live their life. Mind your own business.
{"commentId":1827894,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"jennak"}
- 1 vote
#15 - Wed May 21, 2008 5:48 PM EDT{"commentId":1828092,"authorDomain":"LarryH"}
Redefining marriage as including two men or two women is a revolution with no historical basis.
The argument for "gay" marriage citing laws against interracial marriage that were overturned is not a valid argument. Differences between races are inconsequential. As cited in Nature magazine years age, the range of phenotypes within each race are large while the differences in phenotypes between the races are small.
However, the differences between men and women are many and significant.
The California Supreme Court said that civil unions were inferior states to a marriage. Therefore, assigning homosexuals to civil unions was discriminatory and therefore prohibited. Therefore, homosexuals can be married. Hence, redefining marriage and removing the word "gay" from "gay" marriage! Homosexual unions will be full marriages.
Narcissists counter that this doesn't effect you heterosexuals. On the contrary, redefining marriage as a homosexual union causes turmoil in the society. For example, adolescents go through puberty and psychologically workout their sexual identity, coming to understand what it means to be a male or a female. Now, children can be asked will you marry a boy (male) or a girl (female), thus contributing to sexual confusion.
{"commentId":1828092,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"LarryH"}
- 1 vote
#16 - Wed May 21, 2008 6:47 PM EDT{"commentId":1828386,"authorDomain":"jennak"}
Oh of course...yet again...the poor children. The only reason this is a big deal is because people are making it a big deal. Children don't turn gay because their uncle or neighbor is. They aren't going to turn gay just because gay people can get married. They will only see this as a big deal because the loony adults in this country are so obsessed with everyone doing things their way and only their way that they are shouting about all the harm two people in love will have on the children.
The so called definition of marriage everyone keeps talking about comes from the bible. Well pagans were getting married long before anyone wrote the bible maybe we should find their definition to use instead. This is not a religious topic. weather or not the government allows one group to do something and another is not allowed to is discriminatory. Therefore the constitution by definition prevents any laws against it.
{"commentId":1828386,"threadId":"264958","contentId":"1489743","authorDomain":"jennak"}
- 1 vote
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"264958","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2010 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
