Gay Marriage in California?

[spiderhead]

Apparently the Californian Supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage today making us the second state where gay marriages are legal. This feels like it came out of nowhere but it's progress nonetheless.

 

[construct]

So what was the court's remedy? I heard an NPR report that said the ban on gay marriage violated the state constitution, but it didn't say what the court said must be done about it. Does anyone have a link to the court's opinion?

Edited to add: Okay. I've found it. Here is a .pdf file of the opinion.

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/35332lgl20080515.html

 

[opinterph]

In today’s 4 to 3 decision, California’s Supreme Court has ruled, “Limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute.”

California’s statute banning gay marriage was established through a 2000 voter referendum stating, “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

BBC News

Gay Marriage: the Impact of the California Case US News & World Report, March 5, 2008 (Before the decision)​

 

[opinterph]

Does anyone have a link to the court's opinion?

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/cagaymarriage.pdf

-OR-

http://www.santacruzlive.com/photos/051508gaymarriage.pdf​

 

[Txgoodoldboy]

365gay.com has two articles on the ruling. http://www.365gay.com/

"As California goes, so goes the nation."

 

[Spensed]

I hear that the court's judgement will take effect in 30 days and that it includes a direction that state officials put it into effect.

Schwarzenegger supports it, but the issue is likely to be on the November ballot as an anti-gay initiative. The last time the voters voted against gay marriage by 60%, but hopefully the momentum is now flowing the other way.

Even if the anti-gay initiative succeeds, my guess is that there'll be further constitutional challenges and the court's judgement today will help them.

The issue is likely to help get anti-gay voters out for McCain, but he supports states making their own decisions in this area (when he isn't supporting the anti-gay constitutional amendment). So, in theory, he should support the state court's decision (Ha Ha).

Obviously, in some respects, it would have been better if the decision had come after the presidential election. But civil rights progress is never tidy and I think the days of waiting around for strategic opportunities to move forward are long gone, on both sides of the issue.

 

[construct]

So what was the court's remedy? I heard an NPR report that said the ban on gay marriage violated the state constitution, but it didn't say what the court said must be done about it. Does anyone have a link to the court's opinion?

Edited to add: Okay. I've found it. Here is a .pdf file of the opinion.

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/35332lgl20080515.html

From pages 120-21 of the opinion:

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand. Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

 

[NickCole]

For this we owe huge thanks to former Mayor Gavin Newsom (I wrote to him today to thank him and I hope others will too), who had the courage to take the bold step of directing SF's city clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



He took a lot of heat for it.

In the middle of it, in 2004, Newsom's predecessor Willie Brown held a fundraiser for Barack Obama. Mayor Newsom attended but, well as Willie Brown explained it: "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin."

Obama says good things about gays but his actions betray his unwillingness to follow through with substance. Again political expediency ruled Obama's decision rather than principle. He'll throw anybody under the bus.

Obama Snub Still Rankles Gavin Newsom

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/obama-snub-still-rankles-_b_85077.html

 

[construct]

For this we owe huge thanks to former Mayor Gavin Newsom (I wrote to him today to thank him and I hope others will too), who had the courage to take the bold step of directing SF's city clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



He took a lot of heat for it.

In an earlier part of the opinion, the CA Supreme Court held that Mayor Newsom acted improperly in ordering the marriage licenses issued. They said it was a matter for the courts, not the mayor, and ruled against him.

I know he is happy about the overall outcome of the case, but he actually lost his part of the case.

 

[NickCole]

In an earlier part of the opinion, the CA Supreme Court held that Mayor Newsom acted improperly in ordering the marriage licenses issued. They said it was a matter for the courts, not the mayor, and ruled against him.

I know he is happy about the overall outcome of the case, but he actually lost his part of the case.

What's your point?

What Newsom did made the Supreme Court's intervention inevitable, which is what ignited a legal challenge to the ban.

This wouldn't have happened if Newsom hadn't done what he did.

It takes a principled person with the courage to stand publicly for what's right to motivate this kind of change.

+++​

BTW, in my post above I referred to Newsom as the former Mayor of SF. I meant the "former" for Willie Brown. Messed it up in playing around with editing and talking on the phone at the same time.

Newsom is obviously the current Mayor.

 

[construct]

What's your point?

What Newsom did made the Supreme Court's intervention inevitable, which is what ignited a legal challenge to the ban.

This wouldn't have happened if Newsom hadn't done what he did.

It takes a principled person with the courage to stand publicly for what's right to motivate this kind of change.

This was a consolidated case. Newsom's case was one of several that were decided today. The San Francisco marriages were invalid because Newsom did not have the authority to order the licenses issued. The opinion today did not invalidate any of that. Without the San Francisco marriages, this case would have happened anyway and the results would have been the same.

 

[CtBoyWonder]

I hear that the court's judgement will take effect in 30 days and that it includes a direction that state officials put it into effect.

Schwarzenegger supports it, but the issue is likely to be on the November ballot as an anti-gay initiative. The last time the voters voted against gay marriage by 60%, but hopefully the momentum is now flowing the other way.

Even if the anti-gay initiative succeeds, my guess is that there'll be further constitutional challenges and the court's judgement today will help them.

The issue is likely to help get anti-gay voters out for McCain, but he supports states making their own decisions in this area (when he isn't supporting the anti-gay constitutional amendment). So, in theory, he should support the state court's decision (Ha Ha).

Obviously, in some respects, it would have been better if the decision had come after the presidential election. But civil rights progress is never tidy and I think the days of waiting around for strategic opportunities to move forward are long gone, on both sides of the issue.

I never understood why the rights of the minority are chosen by the majority. Here in Connecticut the government made the decision of offer civil unions, which is a lot better than most other states. They also made the decision not to have it go before referendum. Which was the right thing to do. Issues like this should be decided by the courts. Not by the masses who will have no effect of the outcome. The only issue that drives the vote is hate.

J.P.

 

[Spensed]

^ I agree with you. You would at least expect anti-civil rights voter iniatives to have to pass by a super-majority (75%) of the possible voters or even of the actual voters, but I think these initiative can get passed by a simple majority of votes cast.

Still I'm reasonably optimistic that the California anti-gay initiative this November will either not get voted in or will be over-ruled as unconstitutional for one reason or another or, in a worst case scenario, will get voted down before too long in the future.

In that respect the simple majority issue works both ways and, from the polls I've seen, the tide is definitely moving in favor of gay marriage.

And better today's judgement than one going the other way.

 

[falconfan]

Has anyone checked out this story on the AOL mainpage... their's a comment box at the bottom of the main screen and there and people just say the most immature idiotic hateful things. It really just makes me shake my head and realize just how far we have to go still.

 

[opinterph]

Issues like this should be decided by the courts.

And the courts must base their decision on the Constitution …

Conservative groups have proposed a new initiative, this one to amend the state constitution, to ban same-sex marriage. If it is allowed onto the ballot and approved by the voters, [Today’s] decision would be overridden. [Link]

February 14:

The groups, ProtectMarriage.com and VoteYesMarriage.com, have filed ballot language with the California secretary of state that would, if approved by voters, amend the California Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.

They have until late April to gather signatures from 694,354 voters to qualify the measures for the November election and have begun circulating petitions, fundraising and recruiting volunteers through Southern California churches. [Link]

April 24:

ProtectMarriage.com, a coalition of pro-family organizations, churches and individuals, announced today successfully collecting signatures from over 1.1 million voters to put an initiative on the November ballot to protect marriage in California as only between a man and a woman. [Link]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said [April 11] that he would fight an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage if it qualifies for the November ballot … Proponents of the initiatives said Schwarzenegger is risking the ire of conservative voters. [Link]

A forward-looking overview of this issue appeared on FindLaw in April 2004:

Same Sex Marriage and the California Constitution​

 

[jtilden21]

Sorry, guys, to weigh in so heavily -- but this victory is like getting water when you expect tea or coffee.

Nothing has really changed here.

This will go on the ballot in November and be voted down again by the majority.

As much as I would like to celebrate, this is short-lived and there will be no legislative movements until it is re-voted by the ppl in November.

It is just not going to happen. As much as I hate saying that.

There continues to be a stigma about the "label" of marriage.

By edicts, states do have the right to sanction marriage. But, please recall the DMA that was introduced and passed at the govt level.

We have a zillion against us -- and for the wrong reasons. Too bad -- I think we all just want to have our relationships recognized.

That our commitments and families are as strong, if not stronger, than the norm -- is difficult for others to understand.

With a hetero divorce rate at 60% (and that is just down from 67% from a decade ago because heteros don't get married anymore for the usual reasons), I think that they really have no leg to stand on.

If they were honest, they would say: "Come on -- get married -- see what a bitch that is"

Instead, they deny us. Why? No clue.

Looking at "normal" marriages, and the way that they seem to fail -- perhaps they are doing us a favor by trying to deny us -- but, I know for a fact, that we are stronger and better.

 

[Just_Believe18]

Justice has been done this day!

 

[construct]

The referrendum in November presents a challenge to the gay community in California.

The case today was a good thing. Let's hope that the activists in California are up to the challenge the way the activists in Arizona have been.

 

[Spensed]

Sorry, guys, to weigh in so heavily -- but this victory is like getting water when you expect tea or coffee.

Nothing has really changed here.

Most civil rights movements are a process with jumps forwards and steps back. This one is no different.

Two things have changed.

Firstly, in 30 days time, when the judgement takes effect, there'll be a four month or so window, when gay marriages can take place in California. The onus is now of the right wingers to prevent that from happening, if they can.

Secondly, it's better that the highest State Court in California come out pro-gay marriage then against it. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Not saying it can't be overturned by the voter initiative or legislation, but it makes it that much harder. The voter initiative, if passed, will likely be constitutionally challenged in the courts and this decision lowers the bar for those challenges.

The last poll I saw had Californians opposed to gay marriage by 50% to 40%. That's a 10% movement in favor of gay marriage from eight years ago and starting to get within the margin of error. With the Republican Governor against the initiative and with the polls otherwise trending towards the Democrats, who know whether the anti-gay initiative will succeed.

Even, on a worse case scenario, if it does succeed by 50:40, the trend is a clear one and the initiative will be reversed within a couple of election cycles or may even become irrelevant, if civil partnerships statewide and worldwide just become widely accepted as civil marriages.

Either way the opponents of gay marriage are fighting a losing battle.

 

[construct]

Firstly, in 30 days time, when the judgement takes effect, there'll be a four month or so window, when gay marriages can take place in California. The onus is now of the right wingers to prevent that from happening, if they can.

Secondly, it's better that the highest State Court in California come out pro-gay marriage then against it. Possession is nine-tenths of the law. Not saying it can't be overturned by the voter initiative or legislation, but it makes it that much harder. The voter initiative, if passed, will likely be constitutionally challenged in the courts and this decision lowers the bar for those challenges.

First, do you know where the "thirty days" came from? Is it a procedural deadline for the Court of Appeals to issue the writ of mandate? The phrase "thirty days" does not occur anywhere in the opinion.

Second, the California legislature cannot overturn this ruling by legislation. The ruling is a construction of the California Constitution. The proposed initiative is a state constitutional amendment. If it passes, it can only be challenged on federal constitutional grounds. I'm not sure whether there is 9th Circuit precedent on gay marriage. (I'm thinking I remember a case from the early 1970s that held a prohibition on gay marriage constitutional under the 14th Amendment. If that is the case, one would have to argue that the foundations of that decision have been undermined and that the holding should be overturned. Then it would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. How do you think Justice Kennedy would rule in light of Lawrence?) In other words, the initiative would be much tougher to invalidate than the statutes in this case, and this case would be pretty much irrelevant in that hypothetical future case.