So, while I’m nestled here in the Midwest and still trying to get used to the weather [its 53* in May!], I’m reading about some pretty interesting news coming out of CA! Here in Chicago, life = fois gras and in California, life = same sex/same gender marriage! Right on! That’s pretty wicked cool! Makes me think…about life and love.
Here’s the article I found via google and the oakland trib.
Court overturns same-sex marriage ban
By Josh Richman
OAKLAND TRIBUNE
Article Launched: 05/15/2008 08:54:28 AM PDT
California’s Supreme Court today struck down the state’s statutory ban on same-sex marriage, finding the state’s constitution “properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement saying he respects the court’s decision and will uphold it’s ruling: “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
In a 4-3 ruling, the majority - with a 121-page opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald George, joined by associate justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno - found the fact that California law assigns a different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples compared with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples “raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause.”
“(T)he differential treatment at issue impinges upon a same-sex couple’s fundamental interest in having their family relationship accorded the same respect and dignity enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple,” George wrote.
Associate Justice Marvin Baxter, joined by Associate Justice Ming Chin, dissented from the majority.
“If such a profound change in this ancient social institution is to occur, the People and their representatives, who represent the public conscience, should have the right, and the responsibility, to control the pace of that change through the democratic process,” Baxter wrote, noting the Family Code sections restricting marriage to heterosexual couples serve this purpose while “(t)he majority’s decision erroneously usurps it.Associate Justice Carol Corrigan, in her separate dissent, wrote that she believes “Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages,” but it’s not the court’s place to act on this now. “We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root. If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”
Several same-sex couples were represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and including Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and several law firms and joined by the city and county of San Francisco - which ratcheted up the rhetoric by issuing same-sex marriage licenses in 2004, only to see them voided by this court - in arguing California law’s ban violates same-sex couples’ equal-protection rights and has no rational purpose.
Arguing against same-sex marriage in these six consolidated cases were the state attorney general’s office, which is duty-bound to defend existing state law; the conservative nonprofit Campaign for California Families; and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, named for the 2000 ballot measure passed by 61 percent of voters to reinforce state law’s pre-existing ban on same-sex marriage. They had claimed there’s no right to same-sex marriage, and that California’s citizens and lawmakers should define marriage, not the courts.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer in March 2005 had found for same-sex marriage; the state Court of Appeals overturned his ruling with a 2-1 decision in October 2006. The state Supreme Court unanimously agreed to review the case in December 2006, and heard several hours of oral arguments on March 4.
State officials are verifying petition signatures submitted last month by same-sex marriage opponents to put on November’s ballot a constitutional amendment providing that only marriage between a man and a woman be valid or recognized in California. Today’s ruling surely will light a fire under the measure’s proponents, leading to a heated battle leading up to November’s vote.
“Thanks to the more than one million Californians who signed petitions, these out-of-touch California judges will not have the last word on marriage. California voters will ,” said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage-California. “A state marriage amendment is the only way to put Prop 22 safely from the reach of activist judges who cannot tell the difference between marriage and bigotry. We call on gay marriage advocates to halt the divisive and intolerant rhetoric which cruelly and falsely labels millions of Californians as ‘hate mongers’ because we support marriage as the union of husband and wife.”
Contact Josh Richman at jrichman@bayareanewsgroup or 510-208-6428.
Recent Comments