California's top court legalizes gay marriage

California's top court legalizes gay marriage

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer 43 minutes ago


California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, the historic center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"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," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. The California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historic role in the vanguard of the many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays from around the country are likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, a gay-rights attorney who worked on the case.

The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most states do not recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the federal government.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization.

Opponents of gay marriage could also ask the high court to reconsider. If the court rejects such a request, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with the decision of this court."

The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four-thousand gay couples wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Thursday's ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race and state and congressional contests in California and beyond by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large numbers.

A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

Ten states now offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples — in most cases, domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the past few years, the courts in New York, New Jersey and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage.

Outside the San Francisco courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said same-sex marriage advocates could not have hoped for a more favorable ruling by the Republican-dominated court. "It's a total victory," Minter said.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage amendment on the ballot.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."


the link to the original story: yahoo news california's top court legalizes gay marriage

 

all i have to say about this is YAY! finally people are starting to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that us queer people are not going anywhere, and we're people too, with all the same rights as anyone else. Now let's just hope they don't get the support to try and pass an amendment to the constitution against gay marriage.

 

Go California!

 

Time to partay. Now, if only all the states would do this. ^_^

 

.

 

yeah, they haven't legalized it as a state yet. but i think it's seriously on the way to having the whole state performing gay marriages, and that the rest of the country will eventually follow.

i mean, i don't think it can really be a question anymore of it happening, it's just a question of when. kind of like segregation a while back. it will eventually spread itself across the nation.

however, i do have to say i disagree with the political candidates' statements that it should be left up to the individual states, because that's exactly like saying that one state can be allowed to institute segregation between blacks and whites and not allow interracial marriages, and another can choose to allow it. this is a human rights thing that needs to be made equal across the nation, not just in areas that are "okay" with it.

 

That was the whole point of the importance of the Judiciary enforcing the US Constitution.

The only reason blacks and whites can marry in all states is because of the Supreme Court decision in June 1967. Likewise the Texas case, I think June 2003, where two guys (a black one and white one) were arrested for "sodomy" or whatever they called it, the Supreme Court ruled that same sex ppl have the same right to make love as hets and that negated all the "sodomy" laws in the whole country.

So, eventually the Supreme court is going to have to rule on the right of same sex couples to wed.

 

eventually, yes. i'm just shocked at how long it's taken to get to the point where it's even being CONSIDERED as a supreme court type case. not to mention the fact that there's even TALK of a U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT stating that only one man and one woman may legally marry. i mean seriously... how can people be so blind to the fact that each person is allowed their personal belief system?

i was raised catholic, so i understand religious objections to homosexuality. but it amazes me how intollerant many MANY people in the US are to people who are different from them. i've dealt with so much negativity in my life regarding my homosexuality, and i get that it is probably always going to be a part of my life, as i will probably die before all the people who hate gays die too. but i don't know... it just seems so much different here than it was many of the other places i've lived. it's hard to describe the differences exactly, but it's a vibe... and energy of acceptance that makes ignorance just a little easier to swallow, and a little easier to work with. i don't mind helping "educate" others who truly don't get it. but i've never seen so many people blindly follow "what the good book says is right" to such a fanatical point. it's really wierd.

anyways... i just think it's nuts how it's not already an accepted and legal thing. not because i want to get married (been there, done that... it was hell and then some, but that's a whole different story) but because it's not right to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality any more than it is to discriminate based on skin color or accent or hairstyle. damn!

 

Well good for you guys


Australias turn next, not that I'm going to marry anytime soon, but it still feels a bit backward that we arent there yet.

Actually the legislation is pretty screwed up here. As my grandfather served in WWII, means I can get dual british citizenship if I want, marry a guy at the british consulate here (dont even have to go to Britain) and its recognized here, and yet still cant marry a guy as an Aussie citizen - Bizarre

 

It´s a great news! I read in this blog, It`s fine with a lot of interesting articles.
http://www.menintouch.com/blog/mr-sulus-dream-comes-true-a-gay-marriage/

 

I am glad California accepts gay marriages. Let's hope other states follow the footsteps. I am straight, heterosexual, male.Regardless, since the gay lifestile is out there why not legalize it. Some gays and lesbians already live together, why not be able to marry like the rest of us. A marriage certificate is not going to increase or decrease the number of gays in our society.

 

my thread "be togeather, be strong, be heard" tells how we could have gay marrage in all states!

 

It is sad that such a great thing has been voted out. I think that we should be able to vote if straight people can be maried next. Get some out of state gay corporation to run ads that tell how horrible heteromarriage is. The beating of women, the child abuse, the disease spread potential when the wives or husbands run off with other people. All of that could be stopped or slowed by outlawing straight marriage. I say we run with it.

(ps the article started with saying that gay marriage was legalised in the biggest state.... Alaska and texas are both larger... wtf? haha)

 

Hi all! I’m new and I’m straight. My purpose here is to find an answer to few questions that are bothering me. I have nothing against gays. I truly believe that every human bean should have right to live the way he wants as long as he/she is not creating harm to another. I do not think that it’s right to discriminate gays or alienate them in any way. But I think that it should be a two way street. Straight people should also have a chance to live their live as they want. Would you agree?

Why do little children in schools have to be programmed to become gay? Where is their freedom of choice? No one is forcibly trying to reprogram gays to convert to straight? So, where is the aggression is coming from?

Talking about gay marriage: why is it so important to get that paper? Isn’t the most important is to be together? After all, the marriage only exists legally to register a procreation unit: a man and woman having a child. There is nothing so exiting about it. Gay couple can’t bring a child to the world. So, why do you seek to get this status? What’s the catch? It’s like asking a granting a medal to someone who have never been in combat. Shouldn’t the medal be earned in the battle? Can gay couple give birth to a child? So, what equal rights are you talking about? I am not confronting you, just want to understand.
Please help..

 

You know exactly what you're doing.

I suggest you read about the legal and economic advantages, as well as the cultural and spiritual meanings, that are associated with marriage.

Equality means freedom to make the same choices, in this case to be married. To adopt a child. To be recognized by the state.

And no one's programming children to be gay.