Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

Huffington Post. Posted May 16, 2008.


The California Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry; Schwarzenegger vows to uphold the ruling.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"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," AP reports.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The Background

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"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.

Challenge For Gay Rights Advocates Not Over

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

The Ruling

A key highlight from the California court's decision (pdf):

"Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, 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, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

Schwarzenegger Vows To Uphold Ruling

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) issued a brief statement shortly after the court announced its decision Thursday. The governor said, "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling."

He also reiterated his previously stated opposition to an anti-gay marriage initiative proposed for the November ballot. That initiative would write a ban on same-sex unions into California's constitution.

Last month, Schwarzenegger told a gathering of gay Republicans that he would fight the initiative.

Pelosi Hails Decision:

A statement from Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents San Francisco:

I welcome the California Supreme Court's historic decision. I have long fought against discrimination and believe that the State Constitution provides for equal treatment for all of California's citizens and families, which today's decision recognizes.

I commend the plaintiffs from San Francisco for their courage and commitment. I encourage California citizens to respect the Court's decision, and I continue to strongly oppose any ballot measure that would write discrimination into the State Constitution.

Today is a significant milestone for which all Californians can take pride.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: gay marriage, gay rights, california

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


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:
Bitter Victory...
Posted by: CatDad on May 16, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm in one of the 20 states that codified the ban on same-sex marriage. Maybe in about twenty years, after Bush's cronies have died off/retired from the Supreme Court, might the higher court intervene.

As a gay person, I have been disappointed in how this issue has been handled by what I consider to be naive gay activists...who apparently spend too much time in NY, San Fran or LA and are clueless to the vast hinterland that lies between...Yet they found out the hard way in 2004. Civil unions should have been pursued FIRST.....THEN marriage equality. Going head first into marriage has been a catastrophe in many states.

I am particularly pained at how some Leftist seem to buy into the same sort of garbage mythology from the Right that homosexuals are some sort of massively powerful base in the Left/Democratic Party. There's a small but vocal section of the Left that I call the "Slam the Gays" faction...which was out in full force in 2004. Gay people were personally blamed for Kerry's defeat in 2004...an election that was probably impossible to win coming off the 9-11 terror scare and Kerry's sloppy campaigning/speaking out of both sides of his mouth on Iraq. Yet, the belief prevailed...and to this day, there are some on the Left who insist that the Democratic Party's problems can been completely solved by kicking out "the gays." The centrist/corporate Democrats get a free ride.

I encourage those "Slam the Gays" Leftists and so-called "values voters" to look at how many heterosexuals have already re-defined what marriage is...Look at the presumed GOP nominee....John McCain....marriage is a institution that shall last until your partner has become too old/frumpy to take to A-List DC cocktail parties...

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

» RE: Bitter Victory... Posted by: creswell
» RE: Bitter Victory... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Bitter Victory... Posted by: creswell
» RE: One question. Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: One question. Posted by: creswell
Get a life.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 16, 2008 2:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What kind of person walks around with a petition to ban civil unions or same-sex marriage? I'd be interested to see a profile of these people: psychologically, demographically, etc. And if someone were to dissect their brain, what percentage of them would contain repressed gay tendencies? Any research out there?

And what are they doing in California? Why don't they just move to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan?...Or if those places are still too liberal for them, what about Alabama or Texas?

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

» RE: Get a life. Posted by: creswell
» RE: Get a life. Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Get a life. Posted by: bomec
» RE: Get a life. Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Get a life. Posted by: creswell
» RE: Get a life. Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
» RE: Get a life. Posted by: creswell
» RE: Get a life. Posted by: creswell
» It's Simple... Posted by: LeaderofMen
» RE: It's Simple... Posted by: creswell
I dont think the "state" should have anything
Posted by: Mexitli on May 16, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to do with approving or sanctioning marriage in the first place.

As long as the two individuals are adults who gives a rats ass who they are bedding?

This shouldnt even be an issue.

If two adults want to get married - let them.

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

» That's so true. Posted by: Mexitli
Let's Try Not to Get Distracted People
Posted by: Razst on May 16, 2008 4:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being gay, I'm as pleased as anyone that gay marriage is slowly becoming legal and legitimized. But I'm deathly afraid that this non-issue will be blown up and harped on by the media to guarantee that the candidates won't be given a moment's time to discuss the relevant issues of the day such as the Iraq invasion, the collapsing economy, the criminality of the executive branch, and our march into fascism. God why must Americans be so stupid. I can already invision the fanatics drowning the airwaves in talk about constitutional amendments to ban that nasty gay marriage thing once and for all, and running out into the streets with their 'Jesus hates queers signs.' While the decibels get turned up louder and louder about the gay agenda our nation and world continue to crumble around us.

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

» In Mexico Posted by: Mexitli
Discrimination
Posted by: solrev on May 16, 2008 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is great to see a court up hold the declaration that we are all created equal and that any form of discrimination is un-American. It is a shame the US Supreme court defaults to state rights on this issue, been there done that.

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

This reversal is a republican ? conspiracy to attack Obama?
Posted by: warble on May 16, 2008 7:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the Right will use this decision to undermine Obama and make him look like a pansy. I think it was done purposely for the Presidential campaign. If it is true, it goes to show you how sick the conservative nuts and the Corporations actually are as well as our military.

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

» Obama said NO Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters
» Obama is a pansy Posted by: Rune
Wake up sleepyheads......
Posted by: jeffrey7 on May 16, 2008 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real reason Gay marriage take so many hits isn't because folks are disgisted to think of same sex couples haveing sex,it's because same sex marriages don't usually provide offspring. How incredibally narrow minded.
The fact is this, The World,as it's run by governments and the wealth that buys them,has turned living into one kind of hell after another. The media crams awful stories at us and create more dispair than if the Devil itself was walking among us,George Bush not withstanding.
Truth is,we humans are a communal group. We all hunger for someone to share this life with. We need a shoulder to cry on,hands to hold,and someone to jump for joy with. Our purpose in existing is to find union and recognize it as natural to the human condition.
Whether it's with someone of the opposite sex is really quite trivial. It's more important to be with someone that makes this shitbag we're given to live with bearable.
As long as we keep battling eachother over
reasons of personal living choices, nationality or national resources,we've missed the point.
If you have someone in your life to go through it with,that's great! If they are the same sex as you that's great too. If you want to bastardize people for being different than you,you're an asshole do-gooder that probably has a more fucked up life than the people you're so intent on badmouthing. Get over it!!
Instead of trying to create an amendment for what marriage should be,how about creating one that makes it illegal to treat people like shit for profit. Or would that be too humane?
Draft Jeffrey7 for Prez '08

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

Just curious, but . . .
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 16, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just curious, but does this mean that "gays" can marry as many as many "partners" as they like, or will there still be fines for "bigamy?" Or do we have to change the definition for THAT, too? Next we have "partner" or whatever the two "gays" call the other half of their "gay marriage." Does one "gay" "guy" call the other "partner" (kind of implies what the court said they weren't - or did it?) His "spouse?" "Wife?" The other "guy," then must be the husband? And how about when we have two "gay" "girls . . .?" Aaaaargh - never mind! One thing is certain: as long as we go on pretending that the way to deal with abnormalies is to call them normal and legalize them, a lot of people and families who have children with birth defects like autism ought be very concerned (all the same arguments and "reasoning" apply, after all). Actually, we ought all be concerned - but, what the hell - it's a brave new world.

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

» RE: Just curious, but . . . Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: Just curious, but . . . Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Just curious, but . . . Posted by: marilee
» RE: Just curious, but . . . Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: Just curious, but . . . Posted by: Lauren
» RE: OH THE CHILDREN THE CHILDREN Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: OH THE CHILDREN THE CHILDREN Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
» RE: Just curious, but . . . Posted by: jeffrey7
» Walks-In-Storms Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: Walks-In-Storms Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
What does "voter approved" mean?
Posted by: fanny666 on May 16, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can somebody explain this to me?

As much as I support the right of anybody to get married, I don't think courts should be more powerful than the voters.

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

» RE: What does "voter approved" mean? Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan
why do we need marriage anyway?
Posted by: bitsfick on May 16, 2008 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we had single payer health care, equal pay for equal work, advancement in the work place based on job performance and ability, and not your sex or sexual orientation, it would make over half the population of the US financially independent. Of course that would give heterosexual woman, and gays sexual independence, and we can't have that. On a plus side you would know that your partner is having sex with you because he or she wants to not because they have to in order to eat. Before you Christians jump all over me about the sanctity of marriage, let me point out that for the first several hundred years of Christianity the church wanted nothing to do with marriage.

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

Republican who would be willing too
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters on May 16, 2008 11:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would grant gays the right to marry and call it marriage. This is the "libertarian" speaking. Now I'm pro growth, supply side, terrorists killer, right wing.. wing nut however gays should be able to marry. However remember this should be a state rights however just call the darn thing marriage... Alright, back to Red State land. Good day.

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

» RE: epublican who would be willing too Posted by: TheNamelessCity
Liberal Agenda Revealed Again
Posted by: ot on May 16, 2008 12:05 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the California courts have further undermined the notion of a traditional family by upholding the "right" of homosexuals to "marry", they have at the same time ruled that parents are now forbidden from schooling their children at home!

One can only conclude that this fear-based ruling is intended to prevent the most vulnerable citizens of society from having any hope of escaping indoctrination.

http://www.citizensugar.com/1100337

It is revealing that eliminating home schooling and subordinating the role of parents in raising children to that of the state is an explicit goal of Marxism.

If it is true that as California goes, so does the nation, then the end is certainly near.

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

» RE: eactionary Nonsense Revealed Again Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: eactionary Nonsense Revealed Again Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: eactionary Nonsense Revealed Again Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» Yes indeed: REVEALED Posted by: LeaderofMen
Now...
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 16, 2008 3:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we move on?

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

» RE: Now... Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» I thought so Posted by: Philip Newton
Now the Bad News
Posted by: TheJibreelaMonsters on May 16, 2008 3:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You might of just gave California to John McCain in the GE. Now this gets placed on the ballot come the fall and what do you do now, pull Obama from his "right wing stance" on gay marriage?

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

» RE: Now the Bad News Posted by: CatDad
It's amazing just how clueless many of you are
Posted by: Kym525 on May 16, 2008 4:05 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nearly two weeks ago, we said goodbye to a remarkable woman--Mildred Loving--who by marrying a white man, told this country that the human heart cannot be legislated. She stood up for the rights of PEOPLE--who just so happened to not be the same color--to become one.

I for one, as a black woman in an interracial relationship, celebrate California's brave step in the right direction. Perhaps we can start saving the lives of young gay men and women by proclaiming them equal in the eyes of the law.

And, if there's an issue with the big deity upstairs, well, that's between them and their deity of choice. The rest of us humans need to start keeping our noses out of grown people's business. Besides, from where I see it, straights haven't exactly been the shining example of conjugal bliss, given the numbers of divorces in some of the most surprising places--like the Bible Belt.

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

Hate Speech
Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan on May 17, 2008 7:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"But homosexuals are a THREAT to moral family values, period. And so are bi-sexuals, transgenders, cross dressers etc. "

The above is homophobic, paranoid and gibberish. It is also hate speech.

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

» RE: Hate Speech Posted by: creswell
» RE: Hate Speech Posted by: TheNamelessCity
well
Posted by: Friend Of Jonathan on May 17, 2008 7:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"This is what the Right does TOO OFTEN--declare straw "choices" between things that are not even related."

That's home schooling at work. ;)

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