FORUMS > Gay News & Events Forum Rules

Calif. Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS) ― The California Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision Thursday that legalized same-sex marriage in the state.

The high court announced the opinion on its Web site in the morning.

Gay-rights organizations like Equality California called it a historical decision by the court.

The court ruled the state's one man-one woman marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples.

Justices ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples, the city of San Francisco and two gay rights advocacy groups who filed suits that were consolidated.

With Thursday's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, California becomes the second state after Massachusetts where gays and lesbians can legally wed.

The court's seven justices had appeared closely divided on the issue during the three-hour hearing on March 4.

The legal proceedings were set in motion after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples in early 2004. The licenses were later ruled invalid by a judge.

Same-sex marriage supporters had argued that a right to same-sex marriage is provided by the state constitutional guarantees of equal protection, privacy and a fundamental right to marry.

State attorneys defending California laws had claimed that opposite-sex marriage was deeply rooted in tradition and the state's domestic partnership system provided nearly equal rights -- an argument a majority of the court rejected.

Meanwhile, a voter initiative that would make opposite-sex marriage part of the California Constitution, rather than a law, may be on the statewide ballot in November.

A constitutional amendment measure providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California has been submitted, but is in the process of having signatures verified, according to the office of Secretary of State Debra Bowen.

ahem, pardon me but... YIPPY SKIPPY!!!

That is awesome! Congrats Californians.

Fuck yeah! We did it!!! Finally!! I know my mans lookin down from heaven grinning from ear to ear today

Unfortunately this could mean a supreme court battle. Time for a change nationwide if you ask me.

DJBens77 saidUnfortunately this could mean a supreme court battle. Time for a change nationwide if you ask me.

More than likely, but it's the first step.

A quote from the opinion:

[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes -- the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage -- cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest. A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

I am actually crying right now...

This is monumental, considering that the court made this ruling with domestic partnerships for gay couples already being part of the political landscape. While the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts was clarified after the fact on the matter of civil unions versus marriage--and without a framework for civil unions within the state--this decision makes the statement, in the face of statutes giving gay couples near-equal rights that are already on the books even in the state of California, that separate institutions are inherently unequal.

What a great day for Californians and the gay community everywhere.

There's not much more to be said other than hazaaa! And as Chewey points out, it's great to see an acknowledgement that "civil unions" are second-class.

The minority opinions make are a very interesting read, though. Interestingly, their argument seems to be that courts ought not through their rulings usurp the power of the people, i.e. political initiatives are to be preferred to legislative initiatives. Alas, I don't see many politicians willing to stick their neck out.

Congrats California and yay for Mayor Newsom. ^_^

Now to find someone to marry

Amen to that! No rush, but I'm just sayin'...

Great news.

Let's hope that everyone 'sticks to their guns' as the NeoCon right wingnuts and Krazy Kristian Koalition types attempt to use this the thwart another election as they did with the gay marriage amendments in 2004. That trick might have worked when the economy was still decent then...now one has to hope people will vote in their best interests as opposed to their hate. (And that applies to their racist and homophobia if Barack's the Dem nominee!)

this is great, but right now there is a group raising $10 mil to fight this decision

DJBens77 saidUnfortunately this could mean a supreme court battle. Time for a change nationwide if you ask me.

If you read the majority opinion, it is riddled with the idea of "separate is inherently unequal" which will be used as the argument before the Supreme Court without a doubt. What was the case that established that? Plessy v. Ferguson? I can't remember...

It's great, isn't it?

Unfortunately, it is quite possible that this will be overturned in November. There is already a petition turned in for a referendum vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in California. Since the ruling of the state supreme court is based on the California constitution, an amendment would supercede the court's decision.

What will have to happen is a move to the federal courts. Ultimately it's going to have to go up to the Federal Supreme court level, because of the Federal DOMA. This is in process, but it's going to take time. Since there are already a few states which allow gay marriage, people are going to those states, getting married, then returning to their home states and suing them for recognition. The Federal DOMA states that the home states do not have to recognize the marriages performed in other states. This means that the couples are suing based not on federal law, but the Constitution, particuarly the Full Faith and Credit Clause, as well as the fourteenth amendment

Unfortunately, it is not likely that the Supreme Court will take up the case soon. Since they struck down the sodomy laws a few years ago, they are reluctant to address any more gay issues at the moment.

Great, now I just need to find me a husband.

Actually, marriage is a state issue, not a federal issue. So the US Supreme Court can't change it. But, the Republicans can use this as an issue for McCain on a national level for this year's presidential race (they have before!!!), and of course they could try to enact a constitutional amendment to get this changed on the state level. Gov. Schwarzenegger has just come out (again) against such an amendment and said that he would enforce the Supreme Court's ruling.

But this is phenomenal news!

Even if you don't approve of the institution of marriage, the right to be able to get married if you wanted to has got to be the most liberating feeling in the world.

It makes me smile.

jarhead5536 saidA quote from the opinion:

...permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage...

The fight will not end with the California Supreme Court. The sanctimonious forces of intelerance, bigotry, and hatred will attempt to amend the State's consitition, or override this decision at the Federal level. One of the keys to winning over the majority of the electorate, whom I suspect are fairly moderate, is to make the point that same-sex marriages do not diminish the "insitution" of marriage in any way, as the anti-gay marriage zealots would have everyone believe.

Still, today's decision is worthy of celebration. If I'm not mistaken Long Beach has their Pride fesitval this weekend - I wonder how many weddings there will be.

RunintheCity saidLet's hope that everyone 'sticks to their guns' as the NeoCon right wingnuts and Krazy Kristian Koalition types attempt to use this the thwart another election as they did with the gay marriage amendments in 2004.

Moreover, John McCain is an adulterer. It is rather hard for him to claim to be a defender of a traditionalist view of marriage!

txguy1605 saidthis is great, but right now there is a group raising $10 mil to fight this decision

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.



One step at a time. The battle is far from over, but today is a good day for the entire LGBT community in the state of California.

I don't know anything about the case, so could someone explain how the US Supreme Court could override on the federal level? There is nothing in the federal constitution requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Do you mean that the US government will not be required to recognize these marriages?

Jarhead, you sure know you Constitutional Law. Plessy, around the turn of the last century, established the "separate but equal" doctrine which lasted until Brown v The Board of Education.

This is a great ruling, even if it will probably be carried into the US Courts, where I hope "separate but equal" will again be defeated.

For me, it came about 30 years too late, but I yet may get lucky in my December years.

NNJfitandbi saidI don't know anything about the case, so could someone explain how the US Supreme Court could override on the federal level? There is nothing in the federal constitution requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman. Do you mean that the US government will not be required to recognize these marriages?

A citizen's group could sue the state of California in federal court, or appeal the state Supreme Court decision to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision in California. It's going to happen, fear not...

And no, marriages in CA and MA are not and will not be recognized federally...

Yes, Long Beach pride is this weekend. It's going to be amazing, especially becuase now we have such a huge landmark to celebrate.

However, we need to be prepared to fight the amendment that will likely be on the ballot this November. If you haven't done so already, donate to HRC's fund to fight this amendment! Even if you're not from California, this amendment will have an effect on how the other states react. As they say...As California goes, so goes the nation.

Predictable: The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election.

How can the US Supreme Court overturn the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the California Constitution?

As for federal recognition, I'm aware, but that's not overturning it.

My partner and I had been planning to elope to Canada this summer to get married. In my current mood, we may just go to CA, then come back here and demand recognition in MT. With the mile-wide libertarian streak here, and the fact that Bret and I are camera-ready photogenic (:wink, this could be a big deal around these parts...

THREE CHEERS FOR THIS DECISION: HURRAY! HURRAY! HURRAY!

This decision states very plainly how depriving gays of marriage serves no state purpose and denigrates gays.

These arguments will be repeated over and over in the face of the opposition.

Add to that the desire of some evangelicals to get out of the business of bigotry and back to helping people, the opposition is going to have a much tougher time in the future.

The Religious Right's time has come and gone. They were tried and failed miserably. People are not taking direction from them as they did before.

NNJfitandbi saidHow can the US Supreme Court overturn the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the California Constitution?

As for federal recognition, I'm aware, but that's not overturning it.

Might go the route of waiting until the new legislation is written, then that legislation will be challenged in federal court. Got ahead of myself, you're right, the US Supremes cannot overturn a state court ruling, just a state law...

What law would a California law allowing same sex marriage violate?

I think the pride festivities here in CA this year will have more to celebrate. Starting with Long Beach this weekend...

NNJfitandbiHow can the US Supreme Court overturn the California Supreme Court's interpretation of the California Constitution?

The US Supreme Court cannot hear an appeal of this case because there is no federal question to give it appellate jurisdiction. There are a few ways that this issue could end up with them, but none were raised in this case. A couple married in CA could sue for federal recognition, most likely when they file their tax returns or file for social security benefits. A couple married in CA could sue in another state using a Full Faith and Credit argument and eventually appeal through the state system to the Supreme Court. Finally, a couple could sue in federal court in another state directly challenging DOMA.

Also, the majority cited an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, certainly no liberal nor a defender of rights, that is quite on point since the court just struck down the product of a referendum. "It is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation."

Let's remember that when we hear the same old right wing attacks about how "unelected judges" are "legislating from the bench," stale and intellectually lazy as those statements may be.

But here we are, having to rely on liberal straights to come forth to allow us, free willed human beings to have basic rights they take for granted. The fact that we have people (liberal or not) who have control over how we can live our lives is so unerving to me.

We, free souls, who sit wondering, hoping, even fearing what all the straights in power positions are going to decide what rights we can and cannot have.

I am of course still grateful we have that, as opposed to a total right wing state, but still....the fact that anyone can make a choice and vote for or against us is a most anti human act and it stews in my mind. I can barely crack a smile when some straight person tells me they are "cool with gays" and will vote on my behalf. The fact they have such power is scary to me.

TigerTim saidThere's not much more to be said other than hazaaa! And as Chewey points out, it's great to see an acknowledgement that "civil unions" are second-class.

The minority opinions make are a very interesting read, though. Interestingly, their argument seems to be that courts ought not through their rulings usurp the power of the people, i.e. political initiatives are to be preferred to legislative initiatives. Alas, I don't see many politicians willing to stick their neck out.

Actually, in California, the legislature twice passed legislation allowing same-sex marriage, and the Terminator vetoed the bills with the argument that the decision belongs to the court. Well then, fine, the court has rendered its decision.

jarhead5536 saidA quote from the opinion:

[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes -- the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage -- cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest. A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

I wonder if it would be economically worth Brix's while to letterpress this quote for those of us who think it is worth framing. Otherwise, I will do it on my computer....but letterpress is so much classier, and the paper can be so much finer.

Huh? Huh? Could that be done? ...

It is rare for me to applaud California... but here I go again....

Well, Caslon, to be honest, there's nothing economically worthwhile about letterpress printing. But that doesn't stop me from doing it. Anyway... interesting idea. Thanks for thinking it up and passing it along... I'll ponder it.

Oh, I may have to "art" it up a bit if I were to print it up as a broadside. We shall see what we shall see.

BRIX saidWell, Caslon, to be honest, there's nothing economically worthwhile about letterpress printing. But that doesn't stop me from doing it. Anyway... interesting idea. Thanks for thinking it up and passing it along... I'll ponder it.

Oh, I may have to "art" it up a bit if I were to print it up as a broadside. We shall see what we shall see.

You're the expert. This idea is left in your able and artful hands.

Hmmmm....would Caslon be a suitable font??? tee hee hee

DJBens77 saidUnfortunately this could mean a supreme court battle. Time for a change nationwide if you ask me.

Unfortunately or fortunately. The Supreme Court is capable of startlingly progressive decisions even with a conservative majority. Not many people expected the USSC to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick with their decision in Lawrence v. Texas. That it was overturned in only 17 years is unprecedented.

Since then, the court has added two mostly conservative justices in Roberts and Alito, but both have shown glimpses of ideological independence and it wouldn't be entirely surprising if the USSC upheld this California ruling.

Chewey_Delt said...separate institutions are inherently unequal.

I vaguely recall that there was a Supreme Court decision of some years ago that established this principle. Why did it take 54 years to apply it to same-sex marriage?

It's Party Time. We're celebrating here in Ohio too.

It is great that California's state supreme court declared the gay marriage ban unconstitutional. However, I am concerned that this might give the right wing of the GOP campaign ammunition in the presidential race by spewing all kinds of negative, doomsday propaganda that a democratic victory in the white house equals gay marriage throughout the country. I am concerned about a conservative backlash similar to the 2004 election reoccuring again. I hope that this court ruling has no influence on the nation's voters this november.

jarhead5536 saidEven if you don't approve of the institution of marriage, the right to be able to get married if you wanted to has got to be the most liberating feeling in the world.

If I lived in California I'd probably agree with you

Hopefully more states follow suit and alongside that I'd hope the GOP drops the religious right like week old garbage and tells them its time to come beyond the 1st century.

jarhead5536 said[quote][cite]
A citizen's group could sue the state of California in federal court, or appeal the state Supreme Court decision to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision in California. It's going to happen, fear not...

And no, marriages in CA and MA are not and will not be recognized federally...

Fortunately on the federal side it would most likely end up in SF, the 9th District, which is known around the country as the most liberal court in the land. If the appeal is to be shot down, it would most likely be the 9th District of Northern California, to do it. That's good new also. That would force it up to the Supreme Court.

One already has this rite. But.......it's made no difference to my life what so ever! Now the homosexual community will also have to deal with divorce issues too!

So, when are you all moving here??

Someone mentioned that marriage is in the sole purview of the States. That's technically true, but there are many rights that come from the federal level, including but not limited to: Federal Tax filings, Immigration issues, Federal Benefits, Recognition of Marriage across state lines (DOMA), etc. etc.

One victory is great but it does not mean the fight has ended. In reality, it is just starting. However, having a state the size and magnitude of CA offering marriage equally (for once) would put a serious dent in conventional thinking.

The most obvious results won't be seen for at least 1 to 2 years. The best thing that can happen is to have gays marry and drive up the revenues of the wedding industry in CA. That would make a financial case for the benefits of gay marriage - to most neocons who are only worried about their money. As someone said earlier (i think) - making this a business and a profitable one at that will convince most of the Right of the benefits of gay marriage - for their wallets and portfolios. Alternatively, divorce proceedings and lawyer fees will also most likely increase as well, but that's at least 2 to 4 years out (hate I even have to say that).

If this ruling is upheld (and stay-requests and appeals are going to be launched), than the next step - most likely - is for someone from out of state to marry in California and return and sue to have their marriage recognized. If and only if DOMA is overturned - and the federal government recognizes gay marriage, will we have full rights.

But on the plus side (I hate being sane): HORRAY CA!!!!!

Eventually there will be gay marriage on the federal level. It should not be left to the states, this is civil rights, just like how state laws against interracial marriage were struck down by the federal Supreme Court in 1967, so will laws against gay marriage eventually be struck down.

this is definitely a big deal and expect some blow back from religious conservatives, but it seems like once it happens, it gets harder and harder to convince people of the horrors of gay marriage.

in MA after the court ruling they tried to push a DOMA as a constitutional amendment. but some people in congress who initially supported prior to the courts ruling changed their attitude because after gay marriage was allowed in MA, not much had changed. they tried resurrecting it with even less success.

i'm really looking forward to hearing a decision from the iowa supreme court. To have a decision in our favor in a midwestern state like iowa would definitely send a strong message. I know massachusetts is known for being a crazy liberal state haha so i think the california decision backs up this cause all that much more being such a huge state with a mix of liberals and conservatives. A decision in a state like iowa would reinforce the idea even more.

This is so great! I am proud to be a Californian.

HereNBoston saidthis is definitely a big deal and expect some blow back from religious conservatives, but it seems like once it happens, it gets harder and harder to convince people of the horrors of gay marriage.

in MA after the court ruling they tried to push a DOMA as a constitutional amendment. but some people in congress who initially supported prior to the courts ruling changed their attitude because after gay marriage was allowed in MA, not much had changed. they tried resurrecting it with even less success.

i'm really looking forward to hearing a decision from the iowa supreme court. To have a decision in our favor in a midwestern state like iowa would definitely send a strong message. I know massachusetts is known for being a crazy liberal state haha so i think the california decision backs up this cause all that much more being such a huge state with a mix of liberals and conservatives. A decision in a state like iowa would reinforce the idea even more.

I was thinking the same thing. It would be tougher to dismiss such rulings, were they to come from places not viewed by conservatives to be havens of "liberal kooks".

That said, I couldn't be happier that the California Supreme Court showed a little common sense. Here's hoping the rest of the world follows suit one day.

jsttennis77 said[quote][cite]txguy1605 said[/cite]this is great, but right now there is a group raising $10 mil to fight this decision

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.



One step at a time. The battle is far from over, but today is a good day for the entire LGBT community in the state of California.[/quote]


Unfortunately they are no longer attempting to get the amendment on the ballot. They have already secured the number of petitions needed to put it on the ballot in November.

They are now gearing up for a massive campaign to publicize their message of inequality and hold down the hope of human solidarity.

We need to counteract this but in a way that would not aid their campaign. i.e. act like grown intelligent adults instead of the screaming queens that are associated with events like Folsom Street Fair.

The US SC have already ruled on this It was called Loving v. Virginia, That ruling marriage was declared a Civil RIght, Loving over turned the State Laws that prevented Inter Racial Marriages. Mrs Loving has come out in suppport of gay Marriages.

It was in the news up here in Canuckland! So:

Congratulations to my American friends in California for this accomplishment in fairness and equal rights!



That's 2 states up, 48 to go - keeping mind California is one of the biggest states in the USA - this is a very strong, musclely step forward!

Right Aahhnold?

In order to avoid the plethora of misinformation (and hysteria) this decision is already generating, you might want to read "Glennzilla" Greenwald's analysis on Salon.

Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and probably the most influential blogger on the left these days. (I just read his latest book, "Great American Hypocrites.") In his post, he clarifies what the decision means and what it does not mean.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/15/california/index.html

Well I am glad I moved here so I can cast yet another vote against the ballot measure in November against the court ruling.

I actually knew it was coming because I was approached by a petition pusher about the anti-gay amendment, I just laughed and shook my head.

To clear up some confusion that has started about possible appeals:

This decision is final. It CANNOT be appealed.

-There is no federal question that would give the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear it. The Ninth Circuit CANNOT hear cases arising from any state supreme court.

-Even if it were appealable the state has said that it will take no further action on it. All other defendant parties were ordered dismissed because the issues they raised were moot. There is no one that would even have standing to appeal even if it were possible.

If there is any further litigation about same-sex marriage it will come in brand new suits by couples seeking to have their marriages recognized either federally or in other states.

See also, though unrelated:

Kenji Yoshino on the significance of using strict scrutiny in this opinion as well as other important effects it might have.
http://www.slate.com/id/2191530/

Dahlia Lithwick rebutting the inevitable accusations of judicial activism.
http://www.slate.com/id/2191500/

ep83 saidAlso, the majority cited an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, certainly no liberal nor a defender of rights, that is quite on point since the court just struck down the product of a referendum. "It is irrelevant that the voters rather than a legislative body enacted [the challenged law], because the voters may no more violate the Constitution by enacting a ballot measure than a legislative body may do so by enacting legislation."

Right, but the legal "workaround" - which I believe was done in Hawaii - is to have a referendum to change the State Constitution... and then a discriminatory law magically is no longer unconstitutional. Because, at a Federal level, it is legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Until there are Federal protections, we are still at the whims of the "tyranny of the majority".

Just WOOT!

Well, finally! Hopefully it'll come to be more concrete than Massachusetts' same-sex marriage act...

I'm starting to see some push-back, (I always push-back but in a different way) on the California Supreme Court ruling.

I just came across a NewsMax article complaining that this is a violation of Democratic principles since 61% of the California voters instated Proposition 22, the ban on same sex marriages.

Well, it is, and with good reason too. Democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep sitting at a dinner table voting on dinner arrangements. In our Constitutional Republic individuals are guaranteed certain rights that the majority can not violate, even with a majority vote.

I'm sure most of you know this but if it comes up in a political discussion I wanted you all to be aware of it so you can defend our point better.

Here in Toledo we have an issue of Crystal Dixon. She was the former associate vice president of the University of Toledo HR department. A few weeks ago she wrote a disparaging article towards the LGBT community. She was fired. We're starting to get some backlash on that.

Now with the California Supreme Court ruling we may get even more. We shall see.

Maybe Ohio is next, our new governor is secretly gay.

DJBens77 saidUnfortunately this could mean a supreme court battle. Time for a change nationwide if you ask me.

Actually a supreme court battle will be up and coming soon enough and here are the reasons why.

1. Though the federal law dictates that it is up to the individuals states to rule on marriage the federal government itself does not recognize all marriages in regards to taxes. IE Gay couples in Mass can not file joint income taxes are a thereby subjected to more penalties.

2. The whole issue with certain republic and conservatives requesting a constitutional amendment regarding marriage. Yes it will pop its head up again during the debates, should we ever get to them, that is if hillary and obama and quit bickering. Funny how the church believes that because Jesus turned water to wine at a marriage ceremony thousands of years ago that he decreed that it, marriage, is only between a man and woman.


The whole marriage arguement needs to bring out the fact that out of the hundreds of thousands of hetero couples that are married there is a large percentage that do so mainly for political benefit, be it taxes, or job security. There are tons of couples who are married and yet dont have kids, wont have kids, or cant have kids.

Even if every state has some form of gay marriage there will still be the issue with the federal government which will never be resolved due to the fact they get to scream blanket immunity.

Congrats California! Canada loves you! I'm sooooo happy for you

with a population of almost 40 million it'll be hard to ignor!

It is probably a very good time to write our own state reps.

John43620 saidI'm starting to see some push-back, (I always push-back but in a different way) on the California Supreme Court ruling.

I just came across a NewsMax article complaining that this is a violation of Democratic principles since 61% of the California voters instated Proposition 22, the ban on same sex marriages.

Well, it is, and with good reason too. Democracy has been described as two wolves and a sheep sitting at a dinner table voting on dinner arrangements. In our Constitutional Republic individuals are guaranteed certain rights that the majority can not violate, even with a majority vote.

I'm sure most of you know this but if it comes up in a political discussion I wanted you all to be aware of it so you can defend our point better.

Here in Toledo we have an issue of Crystal Dixon. She was the former associate vice president of the University of Toledo HR department. A few weeks ago she wrote a disparaging article towards the LGBT community. She was fired. We're starting to get some backlash on that.

Now with the California Supreme Court ruling we may get even more. We shall see.

Maybe Ohio is next, our new governor is secretly gay.

True dat. Since when in America are people's rights put up to a popular vote? All advances in American civil rights, excepting emancipation and women's enfranchisement, have been forced on an unwilling public by court edict. If we let people vote on what they rights they think others ought to have, we would still be in the grip of Jim Crow...

Interestingly, the court that rendered this decision was considered moderately conservative and consisted of 6 Republican justices. The minority opinion claims judicial activism on the part of majority, which is ridiculous in my opinion regardless of my bias on the issue. The Supreme Court will refuse to hear the appeal IMO. However, the initiative for a constitutional amendment worries me. If it is passed, this case will go to the federal level.

So If I Get Married In California... Will The Marriage Be Upheld In Arizona Or Other State?

XxXabercrombieX saidSo If I Get Married In California... Will The Marriage Be Upheld In Arizona Or Other State?

According to DOMA they do not, For information go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
damn those wikipedians are fast! they already have mention of this very topic notice ..

wikipediaOn May 15, 2008 the California DOMA was thrown out by the state supreme court as a violation of equal protection and same-sex marriage became legal in California.

LOL .. maybe some real jock submitted that addition??

ITS ABOUT F**KIN' TIME!!! ME AND MY FRIENDS ARE THROWING A CELEBRATION PARTY HERE IN THE VERY CONSERVATIVE VENTURA COUNTY JUST TO LET EVERYONE KNOW WE CANT BE IGNORED ANYMORE OF OUR RIGHTS. FREE TOASTERS FOR EVERYONE!!!

This is wonderful news indeed. Here come the GROOMZILLAS!!

TOFUSTUD saidThis is wonderful news indeed. Here come the GROOMZILLAS!!

agreed. and love your username

How amazing it is yet just one more step that has been taken. As an Interfaith Minister the most amazing weddings I can do are the ones done in pure love. Some of the most sharing ceremonies that I've performed have been with gay/lesbian partners. Not to say that Straight weddings are not powerful. But the difference is that "straights have all fifty states all the world we have now three states and Spain, Amsterdam, Denmark, London. So you see, we still have ways to go to be called equal but counting our blessing this is a huge step into achieving our goal; Justice Equality for ALL. Hurray for this win lets win more

[quote][cite]we have now three states and Spain, Amsterdam, Denmark, London. [/quote]

Not to get technical on ya, but Amsterdam is a city in The Netherlands. All of the Netherlands allows gay marriages. And throw Belgium onto that list too

Love CA

As Said by "ACTIVEANDFIT" he left me this to read. Only California & Mass Allow Gay Marriage...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Only two states allow gay marriage? What's the 3rd?

XxXabercrombieX saidAs Said by "ACTIVEANDFIT" he left me this to read. Only California & Mass Allow Gay Marriage...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Only two states allow gay marriage? What's the 3rd?

Uh, the state of confusion? (just kidding) lol zonies are cute

I am taking it that if a person is married in either Mass. or Cali. that those are the only two states that you can live in and have the rights those particular states give, carried out say at the death of a partner or some other life situation that may require the use of marriage rights. So then if I marry in Cali. I'd better stay there, because if I move to New York, my marriage rights were left at the Cali. state line. Is there any case where one states marriage laws carries weight in another? Aren't we bound totally by the state marriage laws we reside in? This isn't much comfort for the other "48" states. Does anyone have knowledge of efforts to solve this problem Federally?

C & I don't know a soul in CA to be our witness at the civil ceremony and I never thought I'd have reception-stress.

.....Maybe it's Me~ WHAT's the "Big-Deal!??" As a "Person of Color"-I'm more concern about Living, working,...getting a Good-Job,..& Not being Discriminated against....then the Need 2-tell everyone,"Who I sleep with!" Maybe I'm just a Pvt.Person in that way. Jem

About fucking time on that one and the day will come when the Supreme Court will have to rule on this (the issue is a bit similar to the miscegation laws on the books til the 1960's*) since, at the end of the day, this seperate laws for seperate citizens in a republic isn't gonna work. IMHO, "seperate but equal" laws condone gay second-class citizenship and all but endorse homomphobia and gay hate crimes. We're all citizens deserving of equal treatment under the law, and gays must demand this everywhere.

*As an nice aside, the woman who recently died whose case was responsible for overturning miscegation laws in the US came out in support of gay marriage, as did MLK's wife, the late Coretta Scott King.

realifedad -

Currently, there are three states (New York, New Mexico, and Rhode Island) that will honor same-sex marriages performed in California or Massachusetts.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) says two things: 1) No state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state; and 2) The federal government won't recognize any same-sex marriage.

Senator McCain supports DOMA, Senator Clinton wants to repeal part 2, and Senator Obama wants to repeal the entire thing.

California, the best place for gay people to live.

I do fear this will help the Republicans in Nov and will probably be over turned by the voters.

core saidrealifedad -

Currently, there are three states (New York, New Mexico, and Rhode Island) that will honor same-sex marriages performed in California or Massachusetts.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) says two things: 1) No state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state; and 2) The federal government won't recognize any same-sex marriage.

Senator McCain supports DOMA, Senator Clinton wants to repeal part 2, and Senator Obama wants to repeal the entire thing.

I believe the whole thing needs to be repealed along with the dont ask dont tell, dont harass act.

Also for realifedad on a federal level it makes no difference. The government doesnt recognize it and never will, unfortunately. They like the imbalance of justice and the fact they can get more taxes out of gays over heterosexuals.

Couple A (MF)
Own 400k house. M makes 120k a year while F makes 80k. They have 3 kids.

Couple B (MM)
Own 400k house. M(a) makes 120k a year and M(b) makes 80k a year. M(a) has custody of 3 kids.

Which couple pays fewer taxes and will get more back? Hint its not couple B.

Also take into consideration that if you put your partner on your health insurance you have to pay taxes on it because its a luxury for your partner since he isnt considered a spouse.

tonyp321 said[quote][cite]core said[/cite]realifedad -

Currently, there are three states (New York, New Mexico, and Rhode Island) that will honor same-sex marriages performed in California or Massachusetts.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) says two things: 1) No state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state; and 2) The federal government won't recognize any same-sex marriage.

Senator McCain supports DOMA, Senator Clinton wants to repeal part 2, and Senator Obama wants to repeal the entire thing.

I believe the whole thing needs to be repealed along with the dont ask dont tell, dont harass act.

Also for realifedad on a federal level it makes no difference. The government doesnt recognize it and never will, unfortunately. They like the imbalance of justice and the fact they can get more taxes out of gays over heterosexuals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the info guys !!! I was afraid this was the case, here in Virginia, its doubtfull that VA will go along with any gay rights anytime soon. Who knows, we may luck up and get both a Democratic president and a fillibuster proof majority of Dems in both houses to pass a nondiscrimination gay rights law of some kind. I don't really look for it, but one can hope !!!!

Couple A (MF)
Own 400k house. M makes 120k a year while F makes 80k. They have 3 kids.

Couple B (MM)
Own 400k house. M(a) makes 120k a year and M(b) makes 80k a year. M(a) has custody of 3 kids.

Which couple pays fewer taxes and will get more back? Hint its not couple B.

Also take into consideration that if you put your partner on your health insurance you have to pay taxes on it because its a luxury for your partner since he isnt considered a spouse.[/quote]