|
|
Post by Gay Titan on May 15, 2008 19:20:59 GMT
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved gay marriage ban Thursday in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.
The justices released the 4-3 decision, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George. Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno joined the majority.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.
In striking down the ban, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, 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, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
While agreeing with many arguments of the majority, Justice Marvin Baxter said in a dissenting opinion that the high court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan joined in dissenting.
The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.
"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.
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 overrule the court decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 15, 2008 19:32:06 GMT
Coolness! Now we need more judgments like this around the world...
Let's hope it sticks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gay Titan on May 15, 2008 19:43:27 GMT
I don't foresee myself ever being married, but think I should at least have the option/right to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 15, 2008 19:48:48 GMT
I agree, Rodney. To marry or not marry should be a choice you are able to make, not one that is inflicted upon you.
|
|
|
|
Post by hector on May 16, 2008 0:39:19 GMT
That would be a nice try in one of the backwater, inbred, hillbilly states in the US, but I doubt it could pass in California.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on May 18, 2008 18:40:10 GMT
That would be a nice try in one of the backwater, inbred, hillbilly states in the US, but I doubt it could pass in California. And that would be which States Hector..?? And of course, I guess that makes California more "enlightened" than other States that may disagree... Say --backwater, inbred, hillbilly Virginia, or Ohio....  |
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on May 18, 2008 23:18:24 GMT
Actually the law which was overturned by the court was enacted by a vote of the people of California.
Also, the use of the terms "backwater, inbred, hillbilly states" can be construed as offensive. Were equally offensive terms used about homosexuals in this discussion some folks would be upset.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 19, 2008 1:00:24 GMT
Cleg raises a good point. Let's keep the gratuitous insults out of this one, shall we?  |
|
|
|
Post by hector on May 19, 2008 1:22:32 GMT
That would be a nice try in one of the backwater, inbred, hillbilly states in the US, but I doubt it could pass in California. And that would be which States Hector..?? And of course, I guess that makes California more "enlightened" than other States that may disagree... Say --backwater, inbred, hillbilly Virginia, or Ohio.... Why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer? |
|
|
|
Post by Gay Titan on May 19, 2008 10:26:00 GMT
I don't think CA is more "enlightened", but the number of GLBT voters is definitely more evident than other states. Certain states still have sodomy laws while others are havens for retired senior citizens (social acceptance has improved with each new generation).
Homosexuals are everywhere (not to coin the phrase). I see this as a victory for equality.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on May 19, 2008 11:39:46 GMT
I don't think CA is more "enlightened", but the number of GLBT voters is definitely more evident than other states. Certain states still have sodomy laws while others are havens for retired senior citizens (social acceptance has improved with each new generation). Homosexuals are everywhere (not to coin the phrase). I see this as a victory for equality. The facts don't totally bear you out; you are incorrect about CA and seniors. From a US census report:From another point of view this is a case in which a vote by the majority of the people is overturned by a handful of judges. Depending on your viewpoint this is a good thing or a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Gay Titan on May 20, 2008 0:52:25 GMT
Of course the % of elderly are growing. The baby boomers are retiring. My parents fall into that category (scary that Ohio is ranked 6th). What I am trying to state is that some states are definitely more accepting and more GLBTA voters are stepping up and voting for a change. Some states, like Florida, still have a large number of eligible elderly voters who actively vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on May 20, 2008 21:22:20 GMT
@ Hector....nice evasion.... ;D @ GayTitan - Point made by Cleg was that the people of Californias' vote (which is how it should be done) was overturned by a 4-3 vote by Judges that decided they can make new law that is OPPOSED to the will of the people.... I am not addressing the right or wrong of the issue, or whether or not the people voted for an unequal status for homosexuals. Am only addressing the judical lack of restraint and illegality of such actions. They would be wrong to do it on ANY issue...  |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 20, 2008 22:45:45 GMT
ss - I could not possibly disagree with you more. the law does not exist to enforce the will of the people, it exists to act as arbiter between the people and to allow for the concept and execution of justice. Where the people are clearly in the wrong, it is the duty of the law to defy them.
|
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on May 20, 2008 23:08:23 GMT
It is a bit more complex than that, Elliot. It depends what side of the issue you are on. For instance, suppose a conservative court overturned a law permitting gay marriage -- would you feel the same?
Or to take another example, in 1894 the US Supreme Court ruled in Plessy vs. Ferguson that separate but equal facilities for blacks and whites was constitutional and this allowed segregation of the races to be perpetuated in the American south.
Of course this was reversed in 1954 by Brown vs. the Board of Education which declared that separate but equal was inherently unequal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 20, 2008 23:20:16 GMT
Cleg - however the law itself is carried out, rightly or wrongly, the concept is exactly as I have stated: "The law does not exist to enforce the will of the people, it exists to act as arbiter between the people and to allow for the concept and execution of justice. Where the people are clearly in the wrong, it is the duty of the law to defy them."
That is the duty of the law and of its servants. The obvious corollary is that the law must also defy the government where IT is unjust, as the law is the arbiter between ALL its peoples.
Whether any given decision is right or wrong; whether you or I may agree or disagree with what is decided in any given case - that IS the duty of the law. it really is that simple.
***
We can quibble on the concept of Justice, of course. but to me the idea is one of fairness and impartiality.
Two couples come before a judge, both legally adults and in their right mind, neither under coercion or duress. Both couples are in love and both want to get married. Both couples are legal residents of the country.
If we assume the only difference is that one couple is gay, in what way is it fair or just that one couple is allowed to get married while the other is not?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterh on May 20, 2008 23:40:03 GMT
That would be a nice try in one of the backwater, inbred, hillbilly states in the US, but I doubt it could pass in California. Hey Hector, what's the status on same-sex marriages in Mexico? I'm interested and found some stuff on the net. Of course, being that it's wiki, it's not necessarily the most solid of information - so I'm interested in hearing it from you. Any truth to this? Wiki om Gay unionsWiki on gay rightsLastly, here's a Mexican poll on same-sex marriages. It's from the end of 2006 and I'm not familiar with the source, it could be vastly different in reality but interesting nonetheless. If true, and given those numbers, does this mean that a theoretical law banning gay marriage would be possible not only in the most inbred, backwater hillbilly states of the USA but also in Mexico? Poll |
|
|
|
Post by hector on May 21, 2008 1:01:30 GMT
does this mean that a theoretical law banning gay marriage would be possible not only in the most inbred, backwater hillbilly states of the USA but also in Mexico? Of course, Pete. Wherever there are bigoted idiots laws can be passed to restrict basic human freedoms. They are not restricted to the United States, or Mexico, or Europe. By the way, next time you try to get me, try using something I actually said. I never claimed Mexico was free of idiots. Far from it. |
|
|
|
Post by cleglaw on May 21, 2008 3:49:26 GMT
I am delighted that you folks tolerate an inbred, backwater hillbilly idiot on your forum since that is obviously the only type of individual who could possibly oppose homosexual marriage.
Frankly I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes, but I do not wish to see the views of a homosexual minority inflicted upon the society at large, particularly in the public school system. Legalization of homosexual marriage is only a first step for activists as has already been well demonstrated in the state of Massachusetts for one example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on May 21, 2008 5:48:28 GMT
I hope you're not including ME in that Cleg! As I believe I have mentioned, the issue is one of fairness, to me, but I don't believe throwing insults at anyone who disagrees with me helps in any way. It certainly won't convince anyone I'm right, and what else is the point of debate, if not to persuade?
As for "Legalization of homosexual marriage is only a first step for activists as has already been well demonstrated in the state of Massachusetts for one example." - I know nothing about that. Could you elucidate, please?
There are a lot of activists for many causes who have allowed their world view to become distorted past the point of sanity. That doesn't mean anything and everything connected to whatever they purport to stand for is entirely without merit.
|
|
