Advertisement

Archive for Friday, May 16, 2008

Ruling on gay marriage may reach into November

May 16, 2008

Advertisement

On the street

Do you agree with the California State Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the state’s same-sex marriage ban?

I agree with it. It was an idiotic law to make in the first place. It is the land of the free except for you, and you, and you? We shouldn’t be afraid of our differences. They make us stronger.

More responses

— California's Supreme Court declared that gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after - religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, long the center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

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

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters planned to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.

James Dobson - chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, which has spent thousands of dollars to get the measure on the ballot - called the ruling an outrage.

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mailed statement.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"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," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts in 2004 became the first, and so far only, state to legalize gay marriage; more than 9,500 couples have taken advantage of the law. But the California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size - 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million - and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Comments

mom_of_three 6 years, 7 months ago

"Another blow to traditional marriage and families. Too bad."No, STTR, that would be divorce.

Confrontation 6 years, 7 months ago

With the divorce rate being 50% or higher, there's not much that's "special" or "sacred" about marriage.

situveux1 6 years, 7 months ago

The biggest and best thing that could have happened to Republicans in November. Nothing gets out conservatives like gay marriage.

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

Tell me, Dub, AA and beo....how would you react if a state banned the possession of firearms? Dont tell me how you 'should' react....tell me how YOU "would" actually react.

RonaldWilson 6 years, 7 months ago

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says: Only if it was going to be a log-cabin republican:Hypocrisy is truly the lefty's only undying principal. Their only responsibilty to their cause is to be hypocritical.And as I've said before, once they identify the gay gene, all homosexuals will be pro-life. They can't reproduce, so they must have our gay children to keep the dating pool full.

cato_the_elder 6 years, 7 months ago

No caring parent would ever want to raise a child in some parts of California in this day and age.

RonaldWilson 6 years, 7 months ago

So, let me see, a few people in black robes can undo what over 61% of the people decided. Hmmm... doesn't seem like democracy to me. It smacks of tyrrany. That's the biggest problem with this story. That is more damaging than redefining marriage. No one even flinches when "the people" are silenced and their will is quashed. Judges should be picked at random and serve 30 day terms, not unlike jury duty.

Alyosha 6 years, 7 months ago

Newsflash! Those CA judges do face voters:http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/state/race/supct/There's nothing undemocratic about judges holding legislators to the ultimate rule of law, the constitution, either a state's or the US Constitution.It's really quite an easy concept: constitutions limit what even legislatures can do (that's why the Constitution says "Congress shall pass no law....").That's what the judges in this case did.

Chris Golledge 6 years, 7 months ago

"James Dobson - chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family.."Oh yeah, let's let our laws be based on purely religious beliefs. That's never caused any trouble, has it?Could it be any more apparent that those who are opposed to this ruling are upset because they can't impose their religious beliefs on everyone else?

gr 6 years, 7 months ago

I bet Utah is looking forward to the changing times!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 7 months ago

Why are you so insecure about your marriage, STRS? Is your spouse that eager to dump you?

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

Beo, thank you for the proving my point. You believe everyone who owns a gun is a danger, and dont believe in the 2nd amendment which protects the right to own guns. And some believe that homosexuals are a danger to their children and a degradation to the morals that this country was founded upon. You are completely fine with supporting overturning the ban on gay marriage because of its unconstitutionality (which I also believe), but then you will spit on the constitution when it overturns a gun ban. Wow. And you call us 'gun nuts' and 'bigots'. Tell me, how do your beliefs place you above the 'bigot' line?

SettingTheRecordStraight 6 years, 7 months ago

Another blow to traditional marriage and families. Too bad.

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

I could care less about gay marriage. I personally do not support it, but I dont think it should be the government's responsibility to decide on who is allowed to marry and who isn't. Here is where I have a problem: I have a problem with a court overturning a decision made by the people. That is the exact definition of communist government. I believe the ban on gay marriage could be unconstitutional, so I'm not going to show too much dislike of the system in this case.I also have a problem with the typical supporters of liberal agenda contradicting their entire belief system by supporting court decisions such as this. What would they say if the people of California voted 61% in favor to ban guns throughout the state, and then the court came through and said, "sorry, but this ban is unconstitutional" (which it would be) and overturned it? I'm sure the liberals would be screaming bloody f'n murder. See what I mean. To the liberals, the constitution only gives rights to them. Which is again, a contradiction in itself.

RonaldWilson 6 years, 7 months ago

There is nothing sacred about "sacred":People use these emotional terms as if they means something:they don't: --aaAh there's the deep thought out wisdom we've heard so much about. All hail the anxious athiest. And, why so anxious? There's nothing to look forward to after you shuffle off this mortal coil. Tell us, great sage, more little know things "people" do.

akt2 6 years, 7 months ago

Malcom X ObamaHow is it illegal for a gay person to visit a sick gay person in the hospital? How would anyone know or be able to screen these visits? Only if the next of kin to the sick person had a request to deny certain visitors.

storm 6 years, 7 months ago

Heteros need to speak out more about the injustice of paying a marriage tax while gay couples get off scot-free. Hope the ruling sticks. Dobson, mind your own business.

Chris Golledge 6 years, 7 months ago

Tyranny? Majority? Democracy?Yeah, the majority has never been wrong, ever. Should we make a list of things the majority has not been wrong about?Our system (sometimes) works because there are ways of regulating how much the majority imposes their will on the minority. And, don't try to twist this around to a minority imposing their will on the majority; what the minority does in this case has no effect on the majority. I'm married and straight (just happen to be that way; doesn't mean anything, any more than the color of my eyes means something) and this example of the majority feels absolutely no impact from allowing Bill and Bob or Jill and Jane to marry.

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

Beo, show me an example of a gun ban resulting in less gun violence. From 2005-2007, 70 million firearms were sold in the United States and gun crime dropped by 4.2 percent nationwide. Since the 1976 DC gun ban, DC has had one of the highest violent crime rates in the country...every year since. Gun crime rates in DC are over 14 per 100,000 while the rest of the country averages about 4.5 per 100,000. Its the same story in Chicago.I'm all for reasonable regulations on firearms. There are plenty of people who shouldnt be able to own them. But penalizing the law abiding gun owners (who account for about 99.5% of the population) for the crimes committed by the other .05%, to most of us is not a reasonable regulation. And in EVERY city/state/country where a gun ban has been in effect, crime rates go UP. So, I urge you to show me where you get your facts for the "more guns = more crime" emotion.

vpete69 6 years, 7 months ago

I meant my previous post to go to Anxiousatheist.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.