Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>SAN FRANCISCO — In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot. Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George. Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision. "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote. The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march. "Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody _ not just in the state of California, but throughout the country _ will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.<< So, there you go.
Originally Posted By jdub I was just reading about this--and how now the fight once again escalates. Sigh.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Too late. It's the end of civilization. On hearing the news, hundreds of people starting marrying farm animals. The far right warned of this...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Here's the link. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/...dex.html</a> I haven't read the opinion yet, but I did see equal protection arguments used as grounds for the decision, which I think is accurate. I'll be surprised if this doesn't get appealed, but the California justices likely knew that when they were writing the opinion.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Ther fight continues, although I hear Beaumandy's head exploded a couple minutes ago.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Ther fight continues, although I hear Beaumandy's head exploded a couple minutes ago." Followed by irrational rants about "wacky Californians" and the like. Boring.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>head exploded a couple minutes ago<< Sounded like the sound of stepping on a very tiny scrap of bubble wrap, no doubt.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Honestly, what the gay marriage proponents need to do is get it legalized, let a long legal fight ensue, and by the time it's settled, Americans will be accustomed to it, just like they are accustomed to 4 dollar gas, and they won't care anymore.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And so now, not completely understanding this ruling, the anti- crowd is already talking about putting a ban on the November ballot. Which, of course, could and would get challenged as to its constitutionality. And in light of this ruling..... The issue still isn't completely resolved, as I'm sure this goes higher. In the meantime, California officially joins the 21st century on this issue.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Honestly, what the gay marriage proponents need to do is get it legalized, let a long legal fight ensue, and by the time it's settled, Americans will be accustomed to it, just like they are accustomed to 4 dollar gas, and they won't care anymore." That's exactly what's happening here in California.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Without commenting on this particular issue, it strikes me as interesting that "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down. Our system of govt is interesting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Whoa. Cool. <I haven't read the opinion yet, but I did see equal protection arguments used as grounds for the decision, which I think is accurate.> Yep. "There can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most consistent with our state's general legislative policy and preference," said the 120-page ruling."
Originally Posted By jdub The anti crowd has been working on that ballot initiative for some time already, signing petitions, raising cash. Maybe we should get a pro-racial discrimination referendum goin', while we're at it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Without commenting on this particular issue, it strikes me as interesting that "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down. > You can not vote in what the supreme court of your state (or country) deems unconstitutional. A majority of Alabama's citizens could vote to re-institute slavery, but it would not fly, as that has been judged unconstitutional. A majority somewhere else could vote to make Methodism (say) the official religion; that wouldn't stand either, even if 90% of the residents were Methodists, and voted for it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down<< If a thing is simply unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if we the people vote for it.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Without commenting on this particular issue, it strikes me as interesting that "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down. Our system of govt is interesting.<< So, I suppose we'll see you and your LDS buddies trolling around the Castro come November?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Without commenting on this particular issue, it strikes me as interesting that "we the people" can vote for one thing, but then a small group of judges can put it down. Our system of govt is interesting." Josh, plainly put, sometimes the will of some people ain't cool. Moreover, religious objections, which is really the backbone of the ant- crowd, have no business in a legal arena.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 So my referendum declaring California seceds from the Union would be Unconstituitional? Ot amazes me that some people think you can make anything legal or illegal by putting a referendum on our ballots. Imagine the chaos if this was true.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Josh, plainly put, sometimes the will of some people ain't cool. Moreover, religious objections, which is really the backbone of the ant- crowd, have no business in a legal arena.>> Religion really isn't a factor in something like this. The decision says that the state will recognize gay marriage. Individual religions and churches are under no obligation to. This is as it should be... separation of Church and State.
