California Supreme Court overturns ban on gay marriage

[patriotsblade]

This is breaking news. I'll post the story when it comes across the wire.

:woot

[patriotsblade]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689/

SAN FRANCISCO - 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 monthlong same-sex wedding march, which took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

An initiative drive is under way in California to change the state constitution to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex.

[Yellowdogtexan]

I just saw this http://www.sacbee.com/102/story/941526.htmlSAN FRANCISCO - A deeply divided California Supreme Court said Thursday that California's ban on gay marriage is not legal, a move that sent off wild cheers and celebration in San Francisco.

Proponents of same-sex marriage had gathered Thursday morning awaiting the opinion, which came on a 4-3 vote, and erupted moments after it was released at 10 a.m.

In its 121-page majority opinion, the court stated emphatically that California law may not deprive gays and lesbians of the same rights of other citizens.

"...(R)etaining 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," the opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George said.

"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."

On the courthouse steps, impromptu press conferences erupted amid gleeful sobbing and cheers.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center For Lesbian Rights, a plaintiff in the suit, read reading part of the opinion, then looked up and told the crowd: "Every piece of statutory language that...excluded gays and lesbians is stricken," she said. "We are free to marry anyone."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a statement immediately after the opinion was issued saying he would uphold the 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," he added.

[Partyless]

I really hope this shuts up the marriage ammendment idiots! But I doubt it.

Regardless - good for California!!!

[McLovin]

A small, but significant step!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,1,4027698.story?vote38891433=1

SAN FRANCISCO -- -- The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court's 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.



* Gay marriage ruling
Photos: Gay marriage ruling
* Schwarzenegger says he respects court's marriage ruling
Schwarzenegger says he respects court's marriage ruling

* Gay marriage upheld: reactions to the ruling
* The ruling
* How the justices voted

The long-awaited court decision stemmed from San Francisco's highly publicized same-sex weddings, which in 2004 helped spur a conservative backlash in a presidential election year and a national dialogue over gay rights.

Several states have since passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Today, 27 states have such amendments.

Today’s ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures. It came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Before today, only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.

[Kurtz]

Oh look, equal rights for Americans! :semmy

[Kurtz]

A small, but significant step!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gaymarriage16-2008may16,1,4027698.story?vote38891433=1


Several states have since passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. Today, 27 states have such amendments.



Those 27 states should be ashamed of their Anti-Americanism. :no

[McLovin]

Well I didn't see this one!

But :woot anyways!

[nixon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1OsOGKPNQU

[Kurtz]

Well I didn't see this one!

But :woot anyways!

I'll woot to that. :woot

:D

[McLovin]

Maybe it's time to move to California. :think

[Kurtz]

Maybe it's time to move to California. :think

Or time the rest of the country ACT/BE American too.

The 14th ammendment states:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those states that employ their 'rights' to deny equal marriage to all persons of this country aren't exercising American ideals contrary to their position they are protecting American values.

[Oceanbreeze]

Maybe it's time to move to California. :think

No, maybe it's time for it to become legal in all states. It seems silly to be legal in some and not in others. It's not fair to those that move around. If they do become legal wonder if that will effect the military "don't ask, don't tell?" There are several things that I wish all states would agree on; marriage, education, all laws, even vaccinations, pets and kids, vary from state to state.

[toxic]

It seems that the feminine are not happy till they have legal proof that they are someone's property.

[Kurtz]

It seems that the feminine are not happy till they have legal proof that they are someone's property.


Obviously you are unaware of the legalities of marriage 'n by that I mean the privileges with over 1,000 RIGHTS as a legally married person.

And btw, gay men (some very masculine) don't want to marry women. :lol

[issac the dragon]

Naw, we don't think wrestling is a form of foreplay. I'm not talking about slap and tickle. The guy thing. I'm sure wrestling hurts.

[McLovin]

No, maybe it's time for it to become legal in all states. It seems silly to be legal in some and not in others. It's not fair to those that move around. If they do become legal wonder if that will effect the military "don't ask, don't tell?" There are several things that I wish all states would agree on; marriage, education, all laws, even vaccinations, pets and kids, vary from state to state.

Of course I agree. I was kidding. :hide

[issac the dragon]

I have never understood why an American can be legally married in one state and not another. That is so rediculous. We are one country. Aren't we? I had thought those stupid laws were thrown out with Jim Crow. And I am tired of piece meal equality. We need a SC to make an equal rights statement that all of us must follow. I'm sure it won't be the SC that we have right now though.

[toxic]

Obviously you are unaware of the legalities of marriage 'n by that I mean the privileges with over 1,000 RIGHTS as a legally married person.

And btw, gay men (some very masculine) don't want to marry women. :lol


I think most all the Rights you refer to are related to the financial aid, ownership or dispersal of assets. If you don't ask for anything special, want special treatment, or want someone else's property, no one will turn you down. In fact, there is nothing to be asked for. So it appears this is more about greed, than love.

My original comment though was in reference to women's preoccupation with the marriage institution, rings, and marriage party. I just don't understand it and would be happy to have someone explain it to me.

[Trueblue]

I think most all the Rights you refer to are related to the financial aid, ownership or dispersal of assets. If you don't ask for anything special, want special treatment, or want someone else's property, no one will turn you down. In fact, there is nothing to be asked for. So it appears this is more about greed, than love.

My original comment though was in reference to women's preoccupation with the marriage institution, rings, and marriage party. I just don't understand it and would be happy to have someone explain it to me.

The rights of marriage over non-marriage are quite real, and you are quite capable of understanding the legal issues.

Nobody even wants to get into your stereotyping of women. :roll

[issac the dragon]

What about the right to visit someone at the hospital? The right to give whom you choose your medical power of attorney? The right to make someone who isn't related to you your next of kin? The right to leave your property to a non-relative? The courts in many states routinely overturn such wills.

[Kurtz]

EFFECTS OF PUBLIC POLICIES ON SAME-GENDER COUPLES AND THEIR CHILDREN

Legal and Financial Effects

Civil marriage is a legal status through which societal recognition and support are given to couples and families. It provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds. Opponents of same-gender civil marriage often suggest that the legal recognition afforded by civil marriage for same-gender couples is unnecessary, noting that all of the rights and protections that are needed can be obtained by drawing up legal agreements with an attorney. In reality, same-gender partners can secure only a small number of very basic agreements, such as power of attorney, naming the survivor in one’s will (at the risk of paying an inheritance tax, which does not apply to heterosexual married couples), and protecting assets in a trust. Even these agreements, however, represent only the "best guesses" of the legal community and may not withstand challenges from extended family members of the couple. Such challenges are not rare given the lack of societal understanding and acceptance of homosexuality and same-gender partnerships. Moreover, legal agreements cannot win for the couple and their children access to the rights, benefits, and protections afforded by the federal and state governments to heterosexual married couples.

As noted earlier, the Government Accountability Office has identified a total of 1138 federal statutory provisions classified to the US Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving rights, benefits, and protections. In addition, there are numerous state-based programs, benefits, rights, and protections that are based on marital status.

For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:

* legal recognition of the couple’s commitment to and responsibility for one another;
* legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;
* legal recognition of a child’s relationship to both parents;
* joint or coparent adoption (in most states);
* second-parent adoption (in most states);
* foster parenting (in some states);
* eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies;
* ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety" (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);
* protection of marital home from creditors (in some states);
* automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one’s partner;
* access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);
* access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children);
* ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs;
* ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;
* recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities;
* ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one’s partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child);
* ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts;
* recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child’s education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms;
* ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent;
* access to spousal benefits of worker’s compensation;
* ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions;
* privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;
* immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;
* protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);
* access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);
* visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership;
* children’s rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved;
* legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services;
* domestic violence protections such as restraining orders;
* automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* children’s right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent;
* surviving parent’s right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;
* exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);
* automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;
* access to deceased partner’s veteran’s benefits;
* ability to roll deceased partner’s 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and
* right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined in 2004 that allowing civil marriage for same-gender couples would have a positive effect on the federal budget. The CBO found that allowing same-gender couples to marry would increase federal income tax revenues by $400 million annually to the end of 2010, resulting largely from the "marriage penalty tax." Although Social Security payments and spending on insurance coverage for partners of federal workers would rise over time, other expenditures such as Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income would decrease. The net result would be a savings of nearly $1 billion per year. The Williams Institute, a think tank at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law, had similar findings on the federal budget and for several state budgets.

Source (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349)

[BartonX]

Oh look, equal rights for Americans! :semmy

No, this is America and America's values being assaulted by a group of criminal ass holes wearing robes and I hope they get 50 years for this outrage against mankind and the family.

This issue involves a vile, unacceptable practice not a people, therefore it has no rights. The practice needs to again be a capital crime so it can be dealt with once and once only!

[patriotsblade]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/04/national/main4152612.shtml

(AP) California's highest court has refused to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage, clearing the way for gays and lesbians in the most populous U.S. state to marry in less than two weeks.

Conservative religious and legal groups had asked the California Supreme Court to stop its order from becoming effective until voters have the chance to weigh in on the issue.

An initiative that would amend the state constitution to limit marriage to between a man and a woman has qualified for the Nov. 4 ballot. Its passage would overrule the court's decision.

The amendment's sponsors argued for delay, saying that chaos would ensue if couples could get married during the next few months, only to have the practice halted at the ballot box.

The same four justices who joined in the majority opinion that found withholding marriage from same-sex couples constituted discrimination denied the request. The three dissenting justices said they thought a hearing on whether the delay should be granted was warranted.

The majority did not elaborate on its reasons for the denial, but simply issued a one-page order saying its original ruling on marriage would be final at 5 p.m. on June 16.

The decision clears the way for gays and lesbians from across the United States to get married starting June 17, when state officials have said counties must start issuing new gender-neutral marriage licenses.