Court Rules Against California Ban on Gay Marriage

[DrummerDeanna]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=579900

Mar 14, 2005 — SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California Superior Court judge ruled on Monday that the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The ruling stemmed from litigation over San Francisco's decision last year to allow gay marriage. Those weddings were ruled invalid by the California Supreme Court, but the top court asked a lower court to consider the broader issue.

"We're gratified by today's ruling," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera. He added it was an important step toward establishing equal rights for gays in California.


Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage
Courts Clear Way for Nichols to Be Charged
Recent Violence Spotlights Judges' Vulnerability

The San Francisco same-sex marriages sparked a heated national debate. Voters in 11 states have backed measures against gay marriage and 21 states are considering changes to their constitutions to ban it.

California voters have in the past defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The issue is expected to move eventually to the California Supreme Court.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom challenged the state's ban on gay marriage a year ago by issuing more than 4,000 gay marriage licenses.

[amber]

YESS!!!! That's Hot. Thanks for posting, D!

[DrummerDeanna]

Yeah - I started seeing it all over the news....if the decision stands on appeal (because of course the jerk-offs opposed to this will appeal) - then California will be the second state to legalize gay marriage

[GypsySorcerer]

[amber]

I will be very proud on that day.

[SuzeQuze]

Dude, that's pretty sweet right there.

[ontheEdgeof17]

I'll drink to celebrate this tonight. :halo:

[ThePenguin]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Yeah - I started seeing it all over the news....if the decision stands on appeal (because of course the jerk-offs opposed to this will appeal) - then California will be the second state to legalize gay marriage

That would be incredible.

-Lis

[Mari]

Wow, that's good news! Congrats on that one

[BombaySapphire3]

Don't get too excited everybody .Massachusetts is a quite a bit more politically homogenous than California is .We have the very liberal Bay area and most of the coast north of Monterey leans Democratic..Orange county is a hot bed of ultra right-wing activity to rival just about anywhere in Bushland .as it has long been the political arm pit of Ca. San Diego is not that far behind ,as well as countless less populous inland counites that might as well be in Oklahoma.There will be more opposition here .

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Don't get too excited everybody .Massachusetts is a quite a bit more politically homogenous than California is .We have the very liberal Bay area and most of the coast north of Monterey leans Democratic..Orange county is a hot bed of ultra right-wing activity to rival just about anywhere in Bushland .as it has long been the political arm pit of Ca. San Diego is not that far behind ,as well as countless less populous inland counites that might as well be in Oklahoma.There will be more opposition here .

You could be right about that. (Since you live there, you certainly do know more about it than I do). It won't be easy. But, Deanna's article is encouraging!

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

Don't get too excited everybody .Massachusetts is a quite a bit more politically homogenous than California is .We have the very liberal Bay area and most of the coast north of Monterey leans Democratic..Orange county is a hot bed of ultra right-wing activity to rival just about anywhere in Bushland .as it has long been the political arm pit of Ca. San Diego is not that far behind ,as well as countless less populous inland counites that might as well be in Oklahoma.There will be more opposition here .

Yeah - I know there's going to be opposition - BUT this as least the first step in something ya know?

AND - I guess I'm also hoping that the supporters of this can mobilize as well as the right-wingers here.....

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by DrummerDeanna

Yeah - I know there's going to be opposition - BUT this as least the first step in something ya know?

AND - I guess I'm also hoping that the supporters of this can mobilize as well as the right-wingers here.....

Exactly. At least we can celebrate this small victory.

[DrummerDeanna]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Exactly. At least we can celebrate this small victory.

Right. I mean there is so little positive news regarding gay rights etc these days - I've been feeling as though this country is on a back-slide in regard to the subject of homosexuality....so something like this gave me a little hope...

Granted all headway being made in the issue is in blue states - but hey - nothing has ever happened overnight - I say this small victory is at least a step in the right direction

Here's a pretty good article:

I bolded the following passage because I totally agree....there is no rational purpose to restrict gay marriage....none.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7188483/

Fight only beginning over gay marriage in California

Judge rules there is
‘no rational purpose’
for limiting unions

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge has opened the way for the nation’s most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to tie the knot, but both sides in the debate predicted a vigorous court fight first.

advertisement
San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled Monday that while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify.

“The state’s protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional,” Kramer wrote. “Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before.”

Ushering out a social norm long considered sacred won’t happen right away, however. Kramer’s decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeals, and conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriages vowed to uphold California’s one woman-one man marriage laws.

“For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling,” said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver, whose group represents the Campaign for California Families, one of two organizations that joined the state’s attorney general’s office in defending California’s existing laws.

“This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country,” Staver said.

Unqualified victory?
Supporters of same-sex marriage said they are prepared for a lengthy appeal process, but described Kramer’s ruling as an unqualified victory. They compared it to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.

“Today’s ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

Jeanne Rizzo, 58, and Pali Cooper, 49, one of the first couples to be denied the chance to marry after the Supreme Court ruling last year, said they were “basking” in Monday’s decision.

“We know we have many steps ahead of us, but we have the opportunity to go from here standing in dignity not defense... It is always better to do that,” Rizzo said.

The couples, represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, had argued that denying marriage to same-sex couples violated their civil rights.

Monday’s ruling is the latest development in a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex marriage that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional in that state.

The two groups opposed to gay marriage rights — The Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund — argued that California has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.

Kramer disagreed.

“One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married,” he wrote. “Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found.”

Fourth judge since August
Kramer is the fourth trial court judge since August to decide that the right to marry and its attendant benefits must be extended to same-sex couples. Just as many judges have gone the other way recently, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays and lesbians from marrying violates their civil rights. All the cases are on appeal.

Kramer’s decision came in a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn California’s statutory ban on gay marriage. They were brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March, after the California Supreme Court halted the four-week marriage spree Mayor Gavin Newsom initiated when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

The California lawsuits have been closely watched because of San Francisco’s historical role as a gay rights battleground. The state has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in voluntarily providing gay couples the perks of marriage without a court order.

Assemblyman Ray Haynes, a Republican, predicted the judge’s ruling would spur efforts to amend the state Constitution to ban gay nuptials, as was done in 13 other states last year.

Haynes has introduced a bill to place such a constitutional amendment on the November ballot, but if the Democrat-controlled Legislature defeats it, he said gay marriage opponents would accomplish the task themselves by petition.

“This ruling demonstrates absolutely what we have to do, which is to amend the Constitution so that we can take the question out of the hands of any judge anywhere at any time,” he said.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Monday he doesn’t “believe in gay marriage” but would not favor amending the state constitution if the high court upholds Kramer’s decision.

“I think that this will be now going eventually to the Supreme Court in California, and we will see what the decision is,” he said in an interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “And whatever that decision is, we will stay by that, because I believe in abiding by the law and sticking with the law.”

[amber]

This (stupid) argument makes my blood boil - "argued that California has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation."
We are the most populated state in the country, and, there certainly is no shortage of children to go around. Hello, this isn't a post-flood world - we don't need to procreate - in fact quite the opposite. There are bazillions of kids waiting to be adopted, all over the world.