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.

[GooniePDT49]

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.

I dont have a problem with it. they can be as miserable as the rest of us.

[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.

[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?

[JonoBN41]

Originally Posted by 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?

Anyone else care to try to answer my question?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 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?

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).

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

I found that interesting as well; the Supreme Court after Lawrence seems to have kept the question open, on a federal level as to whether the scrutiny afforded to sexuality; I wonder if this decision will get people talking in other courts. I'm not suggesting it will open the door to a change on the federal level, but we'll see.

I didn't read the full 172 pages of the opinion (thanks for the post Mystic), but judging from the brief discussion I read, it seems that the statutory structure in CA made it easier for the court to rule the way it did.

I kind of wish I was still in Constitutional Law, as it would have made for an interesting classroom discussion (my professor talked about this issue quite a bit, and as a former clerk for Brennan, I'm sure he would have had some interesting viewpoints).