Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

California Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

By Ginna Green, Shakesville. Posted May 15, 2008.


In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that domestic partnerships are not a substitute for marriage.
Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
48 COMMENTS
samesex
same sex marriage

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Also in Reproductive Justice and Gender

How the Stupak Amendment Radically Undermines Abortion Rights
Rachel Morris

Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Why It's Not Smart to Call Women Conservatives 'Whores'
Tana Ganeva

Boobs to Die For
Elisheva Wolfe

Is the Catholic Leadership Trying to Silence Nuns?
Maureen Fiedler

A National Treasure -- The Memoirs of Gay Rights Pioneer Martin Duberman
Doug Ireland

More stories by Ginna Green

RSS icon Reproductive Justice and Gender RSS Feed

RSS icon Main AlterNet RSS Feed

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Blub, blub, and more blub (emphasis all mine):

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.
The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.
…The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
And because California already offers domestic partnership which afford same-sex couples the same legal rights as opposite-sex married couples, it doesn't leave opponents of this decision much wiggle-room: If domestic partnerships already guaranteeing the same legal rights are not good enough, there's not a hell of a lot of space to provide yet another alternative to fully. equal. marriage.

Blub.

Of course there's a "coalition of religious and social conservative groups" that is already organizing to try to get a measure"on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution," but fuck them and fuck their bigotry and fuck their retrofuck fuckery. I hear equality coming down the tracks—and they really just need to get the hell out of the way if they don't want to get crushed.

[H/T Catherine.]

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: marriage, california, lgbt, civil unions, domestic partnerships

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Reproductive Justice and Gender » Story Tools: email EMAILprint PRINT 48 COMMENTS
Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated. 		View:
Fair is Fair
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Crazy H on May 15, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Y'know - the religious right has managed to ban gay marriage for the last 232 years so I've a suggestion.

How about if we ban marriage between religious righties for the next 232 years? Afterwards we can all sit down together and discuss the benefits of minding your own damn business.

In the Land of the Free (tm) the only valid reason to outlaw something is if it harms someone else. I can't think of anything less harmful than the marriage of two people who you don't even know. Nor can I think of anything that is less your business than what they do on their honeymoon.

Congratulations to all the happy couples soon to be wed in the great state of California.

Let Freedom Reign!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm reminded of the old saying
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hurricane hugo on May 15, 2008 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"be careful what you wish for."

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm reminded of the old saying Posted by: Purple Girl
Get ready...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TheNamelessCity on May 15, 2008 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the right-wing religious wacko heads are going to be exploding with righteous indignation very soon! Too bad their heads won't REALLY explode...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Get ready... Posted by: Longdream
YESSS!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Longdream on May 15, 2008 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do we want?

WEDDINGS!!

When do we want them?

NOW!!

*crowd roars*

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Marriage is a "win" now? Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: YESSS!! Posted by: Crazy H
No one Sees a Problem
[Report this comment]
Posted by: EncinoM on May 15, 2008 3:26 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First this case was not about the right to marry, read the opinion. CA had a domestic partnership law that guarnted the same rights for smae sex couples as for opposite sex couples. The case was over terminology, not civil rights.

By an act of the people of the state of California, the millions who voted, they choose to perserve the common law useage of the term. With a pen stroke the Judges on teh California high bench overturned the will of the people. The dissenting opinion and the New York Court of Appeals, has it right, that such a change needs to come from the people either directly or through their representatives. This fiat by the court will only give proof and strenght to those who argue against activist judges. McCain and republicans are jumping for joy over this opinion, they have a wedge issue to use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No one Sees a Problem Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» NeoCons are like Hillary Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: No one Sees a Problem Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: No one Sees a Problem Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: No one Sees a Problem Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: No one Sees a Problem Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: You're the problem. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: You're the problem. Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: You're the problem. Posted by: Longdream
» RE: No one Sees a Problem Posted by: Longdream
Long Overdue
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 15, 2008 3:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will this advance adoption? I sincerely hope so.

Right about now the Rapture-Right NeoConned crowd will be preparing for the end of the world. Maybe the best thing will be that month after month, year after year the end will not come. Maybe they will open their eyes and cast down their prejudices

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Long Overdue Posted by: Longdream
Another Republican plot to swing the presidential election!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: war_on_tara on May 15, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just in time for the Republicans to energize the few remaining states that haven't yet voted for a ban on gay marriage. Suspicious?

How many of the 4 justices in the majority were appointed by Wilson or Schwarzenneger? I'm guessing all of them! The 4 in Mass. were all appointed by Republican governors. Paul Cellucci, who appointed 2 or 3 of those, took credit in his autobiography for Kerry's defeat in the 2004 presidential election. "Judicial activism" is a two-edged sword.

As a gay man I wish our LGBT "leadership" would stop its bizarre obsession with this non-issue. Who the "fuck" - quoting the article here, we lowly posters aren't allowed to write like that! - cares about marriage? No one I know does.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great just what Karl Rove was praying for..
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 15, 2008 9:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we go again, you think this was to act liberally..egalitarian..?

It may be and effort to recreate the disaster of 2004..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm against gay marriage, I'm against all marriage..!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 15, 2008 9:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just in case you were wondering..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guarantee INSURANCE COMPANIES
[Report this comment]
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on May 16, 2008 8:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes..
...INSURANCE COMPANIES...

(aided by those freaks who can't keep a spouse except through social intimidation of closeted spouses)

will do everything in their power to prevent this"freedom to participate in society as equals" from continuing.

Why? BECAUSE THESE ARE THE SAME folks who DUMP MILLIONS INTO CANADA TO ROLL BACK OUR LEGISLATION.

you think I'm kidding.

Insurance companies COUNT on the fact that a significant portion of the population is excluded from full pay-out or genuine coverage

Just like they exclude 'undocumented workers' from claiming the benefits into which they spend a lifetime paying... yet can never claim.

...as they live a lifetime in fear of personal discovery for a 'social crime' that is no crime at all...


~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian com
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
"do no harm"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They have it backward...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bbear41 on May 16, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...They should ALL be civil unions, with a religious ceremony optional and legally irrelevant (as in one of Robert Heinlein's SF novels)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage again?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: luzmejor on May 16, 2008 12:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, surely we all agree that heterosexuals immersed in ugly phobias about everyone who isn't exactly like themselves are the best consultants on what marriage is! (Not!)

The situation in the US is so awful now that it is a miracle that people of faith are still willing to help people "tie the knot" at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Marriage again? Posted by: Longdream

Newsletter

Reproductive Justice and Gender

 
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement