Gay marriage ban overturned in Calif.
Constitutional initiative drive under way in state to restrict unions
MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated 4:18 p.m. ET, Thurs., May. 15, 2008
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 an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.
"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," the court wrote.
The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.
"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.
Coalition to challenge
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.
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.
Massachusetts is now the only U.S. state to allow gay marriage. Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont permit same-sex civil unions that grant largely the same state rights as married couples but lack the full, federal legal protections of marriage.
"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this (ruling)."
© 2008 MSNBC Interactive
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689/
California did it again
California did it again
-
Doreen Peri
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14598
- Joined: July 10th, 2004, 3:30 pm
- Location: Virginia
- Contact:
YAY California!!"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," the court wrote.
When California succeeds from the union and becomes a separate country, I'm moving there.
Yes, indeed, it doesn't depend upon sex. orientation.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," the court wrote.
It depends on the suspension of disbelief.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
-
Dave The Dov
- Posts: 2257
- Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 7:22 pm
- Location: Madison Wisconsin which is right here
- Contact:
They cleared that first hurdle but come November is when it will really counts. It's up to the voters out there in the Golden State. I hope they choose to overturn it. Then I hope it will happen in the rest of the country as well. 
_________________
ak47 pics
_________________
ak47 pics
Last edited by Dave The Dov on March 24th, 2009, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
gypsyjoker
- Posts: 1458
- Joined: May 26th, 2005, 9:01 am
- Location: stilltrucking's vanity
- Contact:
I tell ya what I think boho, even if you did not ask. The republicans are dancing in the streets at the good news from california.
Yep, we got to keep focused on the real threat to america, the sapping of our bodily fluids.
It sure worked for Bush in 04 after the Massachusettes spreme court allowed gay marriage a few weeks before the elections that year.
The question is how to bring it up in october, got to keep stirring the family values pot. It is not about babies being killed or a country blown apart it is not about that kind of war. It is a war far more important than that, it is a culture war.
Somebody shoot me for being a cynic
Yep, we got to keep focused on the real threat to america, the sapping of our bodily fluids.
It sure worked for Bush in 04 after the Massachusettes spreme court allowed gay marriage a few weeks before the elections that year.
The question is how to bring it up in october, got to keep stirring the family values pot. It is not about babies being killed or a country blown apart it is not about that kind of war. It is a war far more important than that, it is a culture war.
Somebody shoot me for being a cynic
Free Rice
Avatar Courtesy of the Baron de Hirsch Fund
'Blessed is he who was not born, Or he, who having been born, has died. But as for us who live, woe unto us, Because we see the afflictions of Zion, And what has befallen Jerusalem." Pseudepigrapha
Avatar Courtesy of the Baron de Hirsch Fund
'Blessed is he who was not born, Or he, who having been born, has died. But as for us who live, woe unto us, Because we see the afflictions of Zion, And what has befallen Jerusalem." Pseudepigrapha
that's an interesting slant, the reactionaries hoping for a backlash, but for real, people are waking up, cultural changes are happening, which will reflect a more progressive politics as well.
either that or hell is freezing over.
my work mate Nolita wants to move there. her partner can't have custody of Nolie's adopted kid here in Florita, land of born again Babble-thumpers.
but things are stirring.
either that or hell is freezing over.
my work mate Nolita wants to move there. her partner can't have custody of Nolie's adopted kid here in Florita, land of born again Babble-thumpers.
but things are stirring.
[color=darkcyan]i'm on a survival mission
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
yo ho ho an a bottle of rum om[/color]
-
Dave The Dov
- Posts: 2257
- Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 7:22 pm
- Location: Madison Wisconsin which is right here
- Contact:
Could I see them packing their bags.....oh wait there's no place from them to go!!!!
_________________
Acura SLX
_________________
Acura SLX
Last edited by Dave The Dov on March 24th, 2009, 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
gypsyjoker
- Posts: 1458
- Joined: May 26th, 2005, 9:01 am
- Location: stilltrucking's vanity
- Contact:
I hope you are right boho.
Free Rice
Avatar Courtesy of the Baron de Hirsch Fund
'Blessed is he who was not born, Or he, who having been born, has died. But as for us who live, woe unto us, Because we see the afflictions of Zion, And what has befallen Jerusalem." Pseudepigrapha
Avatar Courtesy of the Baron de Hirsch Fund
'Blessed is he who was not born, Or he, who having been born, has died. But as for us who live, woe unto us, Because we see the afflictions of Zion, And what has befallen Jerusalem." Pseudepigrapha
I'll play.
I know a few queers who argue that they don't want marriage rights, as they view marriage as a hetero-cultural relationship based on economics and property. They wish to distance themselves as far as possible from heterosexual culture, as they view it as a culture of oppression and general failure.
And to a degree I agree with them. But there are also those who do not separate themselves from hetero culture, in fact arguing that there is one culture made up of queers and heteros alike (they would also not use the word queer). And in this aspect, if they feel that they want to be married, then I fully support that. I also support the argument that the state should not discriminate based on sexuality, and certainly not in religious terms such as Bush Jr. and his associates and followers continuously do.
I support the argument that a legal marriage and a religious marriage should be separate, as they are in other places in the world. I view the refusal to legally recognize queer couples as a form of economic warfare against our community, not to mention a continuation of the mental, emotional, and psychological warfare that hetero culture perpetuates to this second.
I personally don't need any church or government to validate any relationship I may be in.
I do fully expect, and will fight for, the same economic and social rights as my hetero neighbours.
I know a few queers who argue that they don't want marriage rights, as they view marriage as a hetero-cultural relationship based on economics and property. They wish to distance themselves as far as possible from heterosexual culture, as they view it as a culture of oppression and general failure.
And to a degree I agree with them. But there are also those who do not separate themselves from hetero culture, in fact arguing that there is one culture made up of queers and heteros alike (they would also not use the word queer). And in this aspect, if they feel that they want to be married, then I fully support that. I also support the argument that the state should not discriminate based on sexuality, and certainly not in religious terms such as Bush Jr. and his associates and followers continuously do.
I support the argument that a legal marriage and a religious marriage should be separate, as they are in other places in the world. I view the refusal to legally recognize queer couples as a form of economic warfare against our community, not to mention a continuation of the mental, emotional, and psychological warfare that hetero culture perpetuates to this second.
I personally don't need any church or government to validate any relationship I may be in.
I do fully expect, and will fight for, the same economic and social rights as my hetero neighbours.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest