[This is a major victory! Thankfully, public pressure has made the California Supreme Court take the right stand. This decision that "domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage" is to the left of Obama and Clinton, both of whom oppose Gay/Lesbian marriage. -Steven Argue]

May 15, 2008

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:05 p.m. ET

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- 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.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's month-long same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.
posted by:
Steven
SF Bay Area
  • Dor anyone know where this leaves the Rights move to create a constitualtional amenment to the Constitution of California that will deny same sex marriages?
    • Yes. A legal news analyst was saying that if one were to look closely at the wording of the document, the Supreme Court justices were saying that the basis for the decision was that in denying the right for gay people to marry, is to treat them as second class citizens. It's a civil rights issue, not an ethical issue. The Supreme Court justices indicated that they are defending the issue of equal rights and have the power to strike down laws they deem to be unconstitutional. While they did not exactly spell it out. The legal analyst indicated that the wording of the Supreme Court's decision suggests that they're anticipating the issue to re-surface in November's ballot measure. In essence, while the homphopes may push the ballot measure to re-define the marriage as between a man and a women, even if the ballot measure suceeds, the Supreme Court Justices can deem it unconstitutional and strike it down. Hopefully the right wingers will realize this. Hopefully they'll realize that they lost, WE WON, and just go back home and be more productive. They should send money to earthquake relief workers in China instead of sending money to kick around an issue that has already been decided on.

      Azazeal
      • The California Supreme Court has ruled that gays have a constitutional right to liberation, entitling them to legal promiscuous public sex.
        Now that would be liberating, compared to permission to imitate an ancient biblical patriarchal heterosexual institution . My 2 cents.-JTF

        • I hear you Jerry.

          I'm all for promiscuous sex.

          And as an atheist, I'm not big on ancient biblical traditions.

          Yet, for couples who wish to marry, there are certain benefits that marriage gives that are important.

          Visitation rights of relatives versus non-relatives who are sick is one of these.

          Work benefits are another. Some of those benefits, like healthcare, should already be there through socialized medicine, but….

          As long as heterosexual couples are given such unequal rights under conditions as they currently exist, we have a problem of inequality that shouldn’t be there. This is what makes this a victory in my opinion. It doesn’t mean Gays/Lesbians should get married, it means that right will be there if chosen.

Recent topics in "California Radical Faeries"