California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[DaemonSeid]

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

[Kevin]

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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

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...

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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

Kevin was attempting to be clever...again.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Kevin was attempting to be clever...again.

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

[PhoenixAzul]

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

[Kevin]

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.

[JonoBN41]

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

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I just don't like seeing judges doing what legislatures should be doing.

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

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

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.

[JonoBN41]

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?

[DSTCHAOS]

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.

[PhiGam]

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.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Im not sure how I feel about the courts stepping in here even though I agree with the legalization of gay marriage.

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

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.

Paging Karl Rove... blech