California’s top court overturns gay marriage ban
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
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 striking down the ban.
Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.
Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, “Pali, will you marry me?”
“This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us,” Rizzo said. “This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity.”
In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.
“I’ve been waiting for this all my life,” he said. “This is a life-affirming moment.”
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.
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, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.
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. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would’ve granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release 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 last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state’s 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.
Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state’s marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.
Lee ADDS: This court decision goes against the very Laws of man! Californians have already voted and said that marriage is between a man and a woman only! Now thwey must do it all over for the sake of a few misguided judges!
May 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
The Constitution gives everyone equal rights. It does not, nor should it, say except for homosexuals. More and more evidence, is proving homosexuality is genetic. It absolutely is NOT a choice. It is NOT against “the very laws of man”!! That is an uneducated opinion, not fact. It’s past time for people to get over their holier-than-thou attitudes! Some preachers have decided to interpret a passage in their bible, as saying homosexuality is a sin. That is THEIR interpretation, not all agree with what that passage actuality states. Their bible is interpreted from the original one, which was written in Hebrew. It was old and faded. In Hebrew, a dot or a dash can completely change the meaning of the word. There are many notations, showing other possible interpretations of that, as well as many other, passages. If man is made in His image, who are we to judge? Gays in NO way effect marriage or heterosexual lifestyles. Someone gay, would never be interested in a heterosexual. Contrary to what many ignorant, uninformed people think, gays do NOT try to convert anyone to being gay, and they are NOT child molesters! They are people, just like you or me, except they are wired differently. They lead productive lives, make excellent parents and live their lives just as we do. They have EVERY right to be in a happy, monogamous relationship, as every other citizen! Discrimination for ANY reason, is wrong and should be illegal. We have NO right to foist OUR opinions on them. It is none of anyone’s business, what goes on in bedrooms. There are many heterosexual sexual activities, that would be condemned by some…are we going to ostracize them? ask everyone what goes on in their bedrooms? set up what we judge to be acceptable? Man alone, has said marriage should be between a man and a woman. Why? Not because of procreation, as not all couples want children. Should we prevent them from marrying? Stop being so judgmental!! Think about it! Being gay is probably genetic, just as having blue eyes is. In my opinion, it’s pathetic for any person to dictate (vote) how anyone should live, before they look closely at their own glass house.
May 15th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Yourv explanation of what the Christian Bible is all about is blatantly wrong. As a Pastor and a Christian I know that of the many Verses in the Bible that speak on homosexuality all name it as not only a sin but a deadly sin! To infer that a ‘blur’ is almost laughable.
I see homosexuality as a sin if it is being actively practiced. To say otherwise is both inane and unworthy of any individual. But, if the need for sex is greater than the need of salvation, then consequences must be expected. Also, it is not the fear of all that homosexuals are attempting to lure everyone to their lifestyle. It is the approach that ias unwanted and the fear of repercussions for voicing their thoughts of having those approaches stopped.
The ‘gay community’ chooses to flaunt their lifestyle before the world and literally dares anyone to confront that issue. That is just as sinful as anything imaginable. When did you last see a parade that clebrates hoterosexuality? When is the last time you witnessed a sex act done in public and applauded as something to be admired?
“Love thy neighbor as thy love thyself.” That is often difficult as the one you seek to accept has such excessive thoughts of sexual natures that those very thoughts prevent that person from thinking of anything else!
To grant ’special rights’ to any, simply because they have sexual views that are not of the generral public is to invite the downfall of society! If man wants to be seen as equal, that that man knows no ’special rights’ are due to be granted!
I will make you a contract that is uncancellable. One condition is, ‘do not tell me what goes on in your bedroom and I will not tell you about what goes on in mine! I am not one that wants to know what is preferred if no laws are being violated!
Wether you like it or not there is not one marriage of man to man or woman to woman in the Bible. Not one! There has been no recognitionj of same sex marriages for some 7,000+ yeras and it should not statrt now! If a ‘Contract of Mutual Consent’ is needed, fine. But, to say that ‘If I cannot marry’ is an denial of someones Rights, I wonder what the true motivation is for that statement! If I am to give liove and RESPECT to a person, am I not entitled to get RECIPROCATION?
I do not throw stones in a glass house but, neither do I parade around in a sexual nature and wexpext to be taken seriously!
Nuff Said!