California's top court overturns gay marriage ban
 

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 .

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

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.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/...s/gay_marriage

Strictly speaking, don't gays have just as much right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straights? I'm failing to see where there's discrimination here.

Good luck with that.

Gays don't generally marry of the opposite sex.....I think that's the whole point...heh

And look at it like this....gays are gaining the right to be miserable just like everyone else...

Kevin was attempting to be clever...again. :)

0 for 2...he should quit while he is way behind

Hooray! I read about this on a wedding blog I read. Was curious to see what the ruling would be. :)

So far, our definition of marriage has only included as between a man and a woman. This court decision alters that distinction. I think such definitions are solely the province of legislatures and I agree with many that this is about as "activist" a decision as I've ever seen.

I have no problem with gay marriage. I'm 100% for it. I just don't like seeing judges doing what legislatures should be doing.

The activists will try to get gay marriage banned again in November.

Now we get to your point. :) And I understand it.

That'll be tough to do. I haven't seen the actual opinion, but I did read the wiki article. If accurate, it seemed to indicate that the California Supreme Court said that gays were a suspect class, on the same level as race (the article incorrectly lumped race and gender together as a "suspect" class, which is wrong since gender is a semi-suspect class). What all of that means is that under California law, laws which discriminate against gays will be given strict scrutiny.

What all that means is that any sort of laws passed discriminating against gays will be unconstitutional in California. I'd be interested to know whether the California Supreme Court found that the protection here was in the U.S. Constitution or the California Constitution.

If anyone knows the citation for the case, hook me up.

What I still don't understand is how gay marriage somehow threatens traditional marriage. I mean, I can see how giving voting privileges to blacks and women threatened the power traditionally held by white men (although it was ultimately done), but what difference would it make to any happily married couple if two guys across the street were also married?

It challenges people's notions of traditional family (as do all deviations from the two-parent, male and female, traditional gender norm family structure does), religious and moral stances, and of course there has to be $$$$ interest in there somewhere to keep all the protest worth it.

What about tax breaks, employee benefits for spouses and dependents, alimony, and other stuff that people think should be reserved for God's chosen few? People tend not to protest for years and years and years over something if there's no $$$$ at stake.

ETA: Particularly in times of economic downturn, people are more protective over their dwindling pot of gold.

Im not sure how I feel about the courts stepping in here even though I agree with the legalization of gay marriage. Every state that this is on the ballot for in November will see an increase in the number of evangelical voters, if I were a campaign strategist I would try to get either gay marriage or partial birth abortion bans on the ballot in every key state.

Wow, I did NOT see that coming from you, PhiGam. I'm impressed!
Paging Karl Rove... blech

Interesting, but what about the chosen "few" themselves? Actually it's the majority, isn't it. Not once in my life have I heard anyone try to stop a marriage solely on the basis of the negative financial impact their marriage would have on those already married. Not once.

Alimony? Do you mean to say if the gay guys across the street get married and then divorced, I'll have to pay them alimony? I did not know that. Good point.

What are you typing about?

Anyone else care to try to answer my question?

I'll answer your question.

If you don't understand my post, let me know your confusion in a clear manner.

I understand your post.

"It challenges peoples' notions of traditional families." On any given night there's something on the news that challenges my notion of traditional family, be it politicians who cheat on their wives with prostitutes or have another wife and daughter in another state, or a married man in Austria who committed incest with his daughter for 24 years and fathered numerous children by her.

"What about tax breaks?" What about them?

I thank you for attempting to answer my question, but you simply have not.

If you are one of Earp's ilk...then no...not really...

I don't think it does. In fact, I can kind of buy the Massachusetts Supreme Court's view that bans on gay marriage can pass the rational basis test. What the California Supreme Court did was take that about a zillion (that's a legal term of art) times further by making laws against homosexuals "suspect classifications" which get strict scrutiny.

(I still don't know whether the wiki was right because the author didn't know that classifications regarding gender don't get strict scrutiny, but rather intermediate scrutiny).

Unfortunate, but not surprising.

This is what happens when judges decide what feels right and then seek to back that up with law.

O.K. You asked the question and I told you why many people feel it challenges their notions of traditional families. Whether you or I agree with it is a different discussion as far as I'm concerned.

I thought you understood my post. ;)

I began my post with the moral foundation for not wanting gay marriage and I concluded with the material foundation. Every social conflict and social inequality has a material foundation. If not for material foundations, and the belief that there isn't enough pie to share with everyone, many people would've gotten bored with fighting over morality and moved on to something that really impacts their life chances.

People who feel that any tax benefits (joint filer or dependents claims, for instance) should be reserved for a certain type of family would be opposed to people in same sex unions (for example) being able to file joint taxes, claim dependents, or get certain benefits.

While we don't pay the alimony, it doesn't stop people from feeling that any monetary exchange (and legal costs associated with separations and divorces) should only occur within a certain type of marriage because this money ultimately comes from somewhere (the belief that we're all economically connected and your paycheck isn't just about you and yours).

These are a couple of the financial reasons for the claim that same sex marriage threatens the traditional family (and its economic incentives/benefits). Again, as with every other social conflict, the battle over gay marriage has a financial foundation. You can find homosexuals who want their partner to be included in employee/spousal benefits/etc. and you can find heterosexuals who do not want this to happen (partly because they feel there simply aren't enough benefits for everyone).

You don't have to agree to understand the moral and material roots of the conflict.

Woo hoo! Hoo-rays for gays! :cool:

DSTCHAOS, I appreciate your answering, but you seem to focus heavily on the financial aspect and I simply have never heard anyone state those reasons for opposing gay marriage. Maybe some people do. Something else to think about. Thanks.

Yep. You're welcome.

I understand the concept of checks and balances, and that some think court decisions these days may infringe on what should be a legislative process.

All that aside, my opinion is that if that's going to happen, this is a good decision.

"The decision was a bold surprise from a moderately conservative, Republican-dominated court that legal scholars have long dubbed "cautious," and experts said it was likely to influence other courts around the country."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6169783.story

I agree that this kind of question belongs in the legislature.

Here's the opinion, BTW.

The Court relied on the California Constitution, not the United States Constitution. The voter initiative will be to amend the Constitution; according to the news this morning, supporters of the constitutional amendment to limit marriage to a man and woman already have enough signatures to get it on the ballot in November. That being so, they may ask the California Supreme Court to stay its decision until then.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with it, since in this case the court was considering a 2000 voter initiative that by statute limited marriage to a man and woman. Accordining to the Wiki, it passed with 61% voting in favor. I wonder if that might mean that this initiative also has a decent chance of passing.

I really don't mean this to sound as flippant as it's going to sound, but my experience is that California courts are not likely to influence courts around the country very often. I recall one law professor describing California court decisions as "what did we eat for breakfast this morning" decisions. The reality is that in many parts of the country, as far as I have seen, citation of a California decision will be met with "yeah, well that's California."

That aside, this is a decision interpreting the California Constitution. Given that about half the states already have provisions in their state constitutions forbidding same-sex marriage (and I wonder if that number will rise now), the decision will be irrelevant in those states. In the remaining states, whether it is influential can turn not only on the predilictions of the judges but on how similar the language and jurisprudence of other's states constitutional provisions are to California's.

The California Supreme Court in doing this may well have delivered the State of California's electoral college delegates to John McCain assuming this Amendment can get on that ballot (which I'll bet will be a major fight).

It's a plot. :D

I don't know. According to the California Secretary of State's office, 694,354 are required to get a proposition for a constitutional amendment on the ballot. According to the NYTimes, proponants of the proposition have collected 1.2 million signatures, which are currently being verified. My understanding is that if they have 694,354 valid signatures (non-repetative signatures of registered voters), then it will be on the ballot. It may already be pretty much a done deal.

Please, we're still in California . . .:p

Assumptions... I'm not religious so I guess it doesn't bother me.
Either way, a ban is not unconstitutional and this judge should lose his office.

I'm with you. I don't get it either. I never understood why gay people decided to turn their private lives into a political agenda. :confused:

I do know gay people, but I do try to avoid the morality debate with them. I have decided that I will not try to convince them of my view point as I will not be convinved by theirs. I just stick to weather and general chit chat.




I'm here.

How did gay people turn their private lives into a political agenda?

woooooooow

This is the most ridiculous thing ever. While the rest of the world is concerned with things like global warming, soaring oil prices, and a recessed economy, all the selfish homosexuals are worried about are themselves, its the most ridiculously selfish thing I've ever heard in my life. We don't need to be spending all this taxpayer money just so gays can call themselves married. Next time you all gripe about oil prices remember that you're also working your ass off just so gays can use up all of your tax dollars tying up courts that could be used for something much more useful. Give it a break, gays are disgusting, and it's morally wrong.

I don't think that homosexuals are the ones making the fuss.

You selfish gays, you.