home

CA Supreme Court Overrules Gay Marriage Ban

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:21:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Gay marriage can not be prohibited in California:

The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry. The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Here is the opinion (PDF). Kevin Drum has more on an initiative being proposed to amend the California Constitution to allow such a prohibition.

< George W. Bush Reaches New Political Low | State Of The Race: OR And KY >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    CA Supreme Court Overrules Gay Marriage Ban | 126 comments (126 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Great Decision (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Athena on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:24:38 PM EST
    If gay people cannot have full constitutional rights, then they deserve a tax discount for official inequality.

    good point. (1.00 / 1) (#17)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:39:08 PM EST
    but I would like to call them something else other than marriages,because it implies hetero style union.

    Call them legal unions or something to that effect.

    I'd just want the acrimony I've seen in gay divorces get just as nasty as hetero unions and it would be nice to see them improve on that score.

    Parent

    Why? You are suggesting they aren't equal. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kindness on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:04:09 PM EST


    Parent
    gay divorce & tattoo removal (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by angie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:43:54 PM EST
    are two growth industries. ;-)

    I'm not gay but I did my thesis paper in law school on the effect of one state's allowance of gay marriage on other states (the first HI case had just been handed down -- yep, I'm old), so I'm happy with the decision today. This is the way it is going to have to work (as I predicted in my thesis) -- state by state for awhile, then on to a receptive USSC, just like in Loving v. VA (interracial marriage).

    Parent

    something like Subhuman legal unions? /snark (none / 0) (#90)
    by mexboy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:11:29 PM EST
    I'm sure you don't have to take care of gay people's possible heartbreaks. They've thrived in spite of society being rigged against them. Heck, many have been killed for being gay and yet the gay community thrives.

    They'll be fine thereyougo. I suspect your reasons for posting your message are quite different, though.

    Parent

    Fantastic News!!! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by feet on earth on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:26:11 PM EST
    Congratulations to all my gay friends for their upcoming marriages in California.

    48 states to go.

    Great News (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:28:43 PM EST
    Cali is a huge state with a lot of influence...

    Newsom...Hoorah (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:29:15 PM EST
    Heh, Obama, you can still get the picture.  

    Thank you, Stellaaa. (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by NYCDem11 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:58:29 PM EST
    I have so enjoyed your comments over these last weeks. I needed that laugh today. Yesterday was a heartbreaker.

    Question for you Obama: How strong will your position be on gay rights? (Please don't say "present.")

    Parent

    You have it wrong. (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:06:37 PM EST
    No one has done more for gays than Obama. /snark

    Parent
    so this is all about Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by seesdifferent on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    is there a thread you wouldn't hijack to attack Obama?

    Parent
    No n/t (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by samanthasmom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:18:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Funny, I just came from a thread on (none / 0) (#41)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    another blog "hijacked" by Obama supporters claiming that this is an example why Hillary supporters have to line up behind Obama. Otherwise, if this is appealed (unlikely), it will reach the Supreme Court and McCain's judges (that haven't yet been appointed) will strike it down and destroy gay marriage forever. Fear mongering coupled with "hijacking."

    Two sides of the same coin, seesdifferent. Everyone is guilty.

    [Also, one comment with a couple replies hardly constitutes a hijacking.]

    Parent

    Can't appeal to the US S.Ct. (none / 0) (#76)
    by daryl herbert on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    This case was about whether the California state constitution requires gay marriage.  It has nothing to do with the federal Constitution.  (That was a deliberate tactical choice of the people who brought the suit.)

    If this was appealed up to SCOTUS, there would be nothing for SCOTUS to decide.  It is not for the US S.Ct. to decide how to interpret state laws.

    Basically there's no way in hell S.Ct. would strike it down (they would have to come up with a reason like "all gay marriage is prohibited always by the US Const.," and I think none of the 9 justices are down with that)

    - - -

    One interesting point: the lawyer for California who argued in favor of the ban did a terrible job.  Really, really horrible.  I think he threw the case, on purpose or subconsciously (who wants to be known as the lawyer who prevented marriage equality?)

    Parent

    Oh, I'm perfectly aware of this. (none / 0) (#81)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:52:08 PM EST
    I was simply summarizing the argument of another poster. Sorry for the ambiguity.

    Parent
    Holistic (none / 0) (#88)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM EST
    In an effort to highlight his "holistic" candidacy, yes, something I have heard and read numerous times, I give every opportunity to give him the credit that is due.  

    Parent
    LOL n/t (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:56:46 PM EST


    Parent
    good for the court! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:30:38 PM EST


    Yipee... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by k on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    I've been tryin' like crazy to get a family member of mine to move to California. I now have one more arrow in my quiver!

    Just saw that on Yahoo (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:33:05 PM EST
    Wow, that is good for so many couples that just want to be married in order to show their committment to each other and love to the world and share the same marriage benefits afforded to other couples. Personally, marriages can be good and many bad. In as much as I won't be having children, the piece of paper is not as important to me, but, I am not saying I will never marry again. Right now, my BF would be astounded at the money I give to causes and Hillary. So being independent gives me that luxury. Heh.

    Some great language in the decision (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by fuzzyone on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    I'm still reading (172 pages with the dissents) but here is one nice bit

    Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional
    That is great. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:41:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Interesting... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Alec82 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    ...I haven't read the decision yet, but it doesn't sound like a rational basis test was applied, from that quote...

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by eric on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:34:50 PM EST
    we conclude that sexual orientation should be viewed as a suspect classification for purposes of the California Constitution's equal protection clause and that statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny under this constitutional provision.

    Sweet, strict scrutiny it is.

    Parent

    Welcome to the party CA (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:43:27 PM EST
    Now if only other states would get on board!

    They're leading the way... (none / 0) (#33)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    and the federal government needs to get on board!

    Yay California!

    Parent

    Between this (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ahazydelirium on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:11:05 PM EST
    and the push for environmental protections, California is really starting to lead the way towards a progressive political future.

    Parent
    All due respect to CA (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:35:16 PM EST
    MASS led the way, they're just following :)

    But it sure does help to get a big state on board.

    Parent

    I meant the states, not CA. :-) (none / 0) (#78)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM EST
    I do think CA is a great addition.

    My state, New York, has legal civil unions for same-sex couples. Unfortunately, they do not confer the same rights as "marriage" does. It's very odd, but my hubby and I got married at the JOP (technically a civil union) but are considered "married," where as our friends Gary and John who also got hitched at the JOP, are NOT considered "married" in terms of legal benefits and assumptions.

    IMHO the problem is the definition of the words "civil unions." Too many people invest the word "marriage" with a religious connotation and that freaks them out when it comes to GLBT folks doing it. We should just say a "civil union" is legally equivalent to "marriage," but without the religious component. Then, let GLBT folks get civil unions. Everybody's equal and happy.

    :-)

    Parent

    Oh definitely (none / 0) (#89)
    by CST on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:07:02 PM EST
    States are waaay ahead (at least some states) on Gay marriage, the environment, etc....

    I have no problem with the term "civil union" as long as all the rights are there and they get treated the same by the government.  I think compromising on the term in order to get the benefits is okay.  Although changing the word does seem to imply that they are not equal.

    Things like this make me proud of my country, if only they would happen more often.

    Parent

    A couple of observations. First, Kenneth (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:45:30 PM EST
    Starr represented Latter Day Saints as amicus to defendant State of California.  Second:  wait for the recall petitions re George et al.  If that gets on the Nov. ballot, the Republicans will be out in droves.

    The Latter Day Saints and (none / 0) (#28)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    Kenneth Star, some how they deserve each other.  I am celebrating tonight!!!

    Parent
    Great News. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Marco21 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    If you're into that. By 'that' I mean marriage.

    wow (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:04:44 PM EST
    now that is awesome!

    I am so happy!! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by BethanyAnne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    We can be treated just like everyone else!  I called a couple of my friends and asked when the weddings are.  happy dance

    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:21:20 PM EST
    I just talked to a couple of friends who are setting a date.


    Parent
    wow (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    this is great news for all us Gs and Ls but I wonder how great the news is for the chances of Obama taking CA in the fall.
    if this becomes a ballot thing it could drive conservative turnout way up.
    How come this ALWAYS happens. . . (none / 0) (#60)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    in the summer of an election year?

    Parent
    honestly (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM EST
    at some point you begin to wonder if this is the only they can win elections.

    Parent
    Don't forget the initiatives on (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:38:27 PM EST
    eminent domain, rent control, etc.

    Parent
    I worried (none / 0) (#118)
    by BethanyAnne on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:55:32 PM EST
    about the same thing.  But I think this isn't 2004.  Conservatives will try to use this to stir up the idjits, well, I should say they already are trying.  But this really is a Democratic year.  So many conservatives hate McCain that I think lots of them won't bother showing up just to vote us off their island. /hopes

    Parent
    Great news (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ruffian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:16:20 PM EST
    today, but it will make the porposition a bigger issue in Npvember, and get those McCain voters out in force. I think this is one reason why he is more confident than most Republicans going into California.

    Awesome! But GOP turnout in CA just went up (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by davnee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:16:42 PM EST
    for Nov.  And who else puts money down that HRC will have a better response to this than Obama (if he has any)?

    Well, he has McClurkin. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:22:53 PM EST


    Parent
    And HIllary has Doug Coe (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by HelenK on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:43:47 PM EST
    I am pretty sure that the Fellowship doesn't approve.

    Parent
    No information about Coe. Has he (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:30:13 PM EST
    campaigned with Hillary Clinton?

    Parent
    Obama was warned about McClurkin's (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:47:53 PM EST
    anti-gay "reparative therapy" crusading.  He ignored those warnings, called McClurkin one of his and Michelle's favorite singers, and allowed him to have a key role in his event in South Carolina.  McClurkin then went on an anti-gay tirade from the stage.

    Obama did not apologize after the concert; instead his campaign sent out a mailer that said McClurkin had no problem with "happy gays."

    The equivalency you draw is ridiculous and offensive.

    Parent

    You're assuming that it gets on the ballot (none / 0) (#46)
    by s5 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:23:58 PM EST
    It may get beaten back before then. It happens sometimes.

    Parent
    if this becomes a ballot prop (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:31:12 PM EST
    prepare for beneath the bus

    Parent
    Nah, (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 01:42:47 PM EST
    go ahead and kneel down and wait for the obama bus to run over you.

    Parent
    Schwarzenegger said he'll fight ban (none / 0) (#111)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    LINK

    Parent
    yeah saw that (none / 0) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:14:10 PM EST
    the question is where will Obama be.

    Parent
    Obama doesn't believe in gay marriage (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:36:22 PM EST
    "Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."

    LINK

    Parent