California Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage ban

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “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.”

 
It’s about time. 

This was my favorite part of the article I read:

“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,“ Thursday’s ruling read.

“The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench,“ said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.

“So-called ‘same-sex’ marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.“

The organization said that a constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal marriage amendment.

“The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people,“ Barber said.

See that? That’s irony right there. In reading the opinion, it’s clear that judicial activism DID NOT take place.

First, we must determine the nature and scope of the “right to marry” — a
right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights
embodied in the California Constitution. Although, as an historical matter, civil
marriage and the rights associated with it traditionally have been afforded only to
opposite-sex couples, this court’s landmark decision 60 years ago in Perez v.
Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 7114 — which found that California’s statutory provisions
prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental
constitutional right to marry, notwithstanding the circumstance that statutory
prohibitions on interracial marriage had existed since the founding of the state —
makes clear that history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for
determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee.
The decision in Perez, although rendered by a deeply divided court, is a judicial
opinion whose legitimacy and constitutional soundness are by now universally
recognized.

“We know that it’s in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.”

What a bunch of hooey. It’s the quality of the parenting that matters, not the sexual preference of the parent.

It’s about time the Court did something right. I hope, since it will probably go to a vote again, that Californians step up and vote against the amendment and show the religious right and other narrow-minded idiots that their backward ideas belong somewhere else.

Nude - 15 May 2008 12:08 PM

California Supreme Court strikes down gay marriage ban

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “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.”

 
It’s about time. 

Amen to that.

It’s about time. 

Perfect, just in time so all the fall campaigns in the State can squabble over marriage and ignore the systemic problems in our government and finances.

Well, I have just returned from a 2 week jaunt, and look what we have here !  I am pleased to see the respectful comments left by several IHB bloggers….not sure if I’m the only one here who gets to benefit from this ruling (I think not…) so for what it’s worth, THANKS ! 

I was in DC at a conference and actually sat in on a panel that was headed by the lead attorney in this case (Shannon Minter).  He was discussing a different topic but I made sure to find him after and thank him for all of his hard work.  Three days later the decision was announced….and I was out of state !  Ugh !  I should have been dancing in the streets of West Hollywood !

Now on to the important part.  There has already been a backlash about this and enough signatures have been gathered by the folks that don’t agree, to place this on the November ballot.  The issue will be presented to the voters whether marriage should be only between one man and one woman.  If this vote passes, it will amend our State Constitution and will nullify the Supreme Court ruling. 

Please, from the bottom of my heart, discuss this topic with your friends and urge them to vote no on amending our Constitution.  This document guarantees rights. It should not be used to take them away.  Massachusetts didn’t fall apart 4 years ago when marriage was allowed for all people, and it won’t happen here either. 

We are your children, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, neighbors, co-workers and friends.  Marriage is one right I would like to have.  Is it really asking that much?

Thanks again all. 

The anti gay marriage people keep saying that my marriage would be
harmed.

If that was true, I would be perfectly willing to be against it.

But I have have not heard one shred of evidence, one theory, one
hypothesis, or even one wild guess as to why some gays marrying
has ANYTHING to do with me or my marriage.

Except, it’s new, and it’s not in the bible.  These are arguments
which are non-arguments.

Likewise, there is not one shred of evidence I’ve seen about kids being
harmed.

I’m sure there are bad mean gay parents.  Well, there are also bad mean
straight parents.

I would actually like to hear some argument as to why the antis are anti.
I guess they haven’t come up with one thing, because there isn’t anything
to come up with.

Only thing I can think of gay marriage might be shortly followed by gay
divorce!!!  It will be interesting to see if the gay divorce rate is more
or less than the straight divorce rate.  If it’s less (and actually I suspect that
may be the fact, especially at first), maybe we should prohibit straight
marriage!!

Actually, if I have a suspicion, it would be that marriage shouldn’t be regulated
by the state at all, except to make sure kids are taken care of.  And that
should happened whether the kids are the result of marriage or not.

LL, I understand the divorce rate amongst heterosexuals has reached 50% of all marriages.  Of course, I don’t have any stats to back this up, it is all anecdotal. 

It is with tongue in cheek that I say…. seems to me like you all have done a pretty good job at “ruining” marriage all by yourselves !  I doubt my marriage will destroy it any further. 

I’m thinking that when gay parents are given the right to marry, their children will grow up in a more stable environment.  To me, at least what has been pounded into my head since I was a little girl, marriage = stability.  And that’s a good thing.

Liz,

Gay divorce happens but it’s complicated because each state has different laws regarding gay marriage. Another reason for California to get it’s act together.

http://www.loveandpride.com/InformationCenter/Tips.aspx?categoryId=8

I’m sure I didn’t do the link correctly, but it can be read by the cut-and-paste method.

Oh, yeah, Troop, you’re right, in fact I think it’s over 50%.

I think fear of aids (or coincidence) brought it down a smidge, like from 52 to 50%

Being a lawyer, I like to hear the other side of things.  I’d like to hear
what they have to say.  It’s been years and I haven’t heard anything, except
the bible and new is bad.  I guess there is nothing to say.  Hey, antis out there
there must be at least one of you, since so many people sign those petitions,
come on down and if you have arguement other than the bible sez Adam and
Eve, not Steve, here’s a chance to tell me why my 42 year marriage will
be harmed if Troop marries.

Is there a special someone?

From a legal point of view, the states are supposed to give “full faith and credit”
to this so what happens in other states when

1.  It is demanded that spousal rights are recognized.  Or, even a pre-nup.  (See,
look what you are getting into.)

2   Suppose a gay married in California wants a divorce in Fla, or to honor a
pre-nup?

3.  Gays can’t adopt in Fla.  What if a lawfully adopted kid of gay parents moves
here, and the natural parent dies.  There is probably an answer to this already,
but I don’t know it.

4.  Finally California has that community property thing.  I suppose there are
ways to get around it, if you want to, now you have to pay attention to it.

As a married hetrosexual, I can’t see how I’m harmed by this.

If a gay couple wants to get married and bear the same tax burdon as us straight DINKs more power to them.  The state/feds need the revenue, and by not having kids, we’ll pay it.

Lawyerliz, I don’t think you’re going to get an answer to your question b/c no one wants to be called a homophob/bigot.  For that reason, I want to make very clear that the following is not my personal opinion. 

This is simply what I see as the arguments to be made by people who are not anti-gay about this ruling.

1. Concern about the impact on children.  I think there are non-homophobic people who honestly feel that a child generally does best when they have a male parental influence and a female parental influence.  It has nothing to do with the parent’s sexual orientation.  In adoption, preference goes to a two parent home over a single parent home, not b/c they are anti-single people or b/c single people can’t raise terrific kids.  These people are not ready to call a same sex household and an opposite sex household equivalent (at least not yet).

2. Judicial activisim blows.  To most people, this reeks of it.  This comes at the same time as the polygamist cult thing.  What’s to stop the court from saying 1 husband and 3 wives is okay?  It’s the slippery slope argument.  People don’t want 4 or 5 guys deciding such things.  Most people don’t want the definition of marriage in a position where it can be monkeyed around that drastically, such that tomorrow you could have 8 husbands.  It may scare off some people who otherwise would be okay with gay marriage.  Similarly, some people may be pro-gay marriage, but hate these guys overruling the voters and work against it to send a message that judicial activism will not be tolerated. 

Again, I’m saying this as a neutral person, not as my personal opinion.  Don’t argue with me personally about this, please.

Well, having grown up with no father (but a grandfather), I agree that to
have a male and female influence is a good thing, and I understand that
some gay couples with kids make an effort to have the influence of the
other sex around.

This is no different from single parents, however.  In the past, single
parents were often single because the spouse has died.

The poligamy thing actually is an interesting argument.  There have been
many successful societies with poligamy.  I’d want some poliandry too,
can just one husband ever be enough?  For an interesting sci-fi speculation
on all this, see Heinlein’s The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress.  The grand master
swung ‘way before the 60s.

But, none of those issues says anything as to why gays marrying has
anything to do with my marriage.  They are always saying this.  Am I
supposed to feel insulted?  Even so, why would this make the marriage
hurt?

Perhaps it is an aesthetic argument?  Well, as an old codgette, I would
like it if everybody acted a tad more staid in public.

I have a gay client with an extremely interesting foreclosure problem.  I’m
always telling him to dial it down.  More info than I need.  I don’t need
any sex info on real estate, except whther you’re married or single, and
sometimes who is related to whom and where do you want the money to
go and why.

It’s not about what’s best for kids.
It’s not about “dialing it down.“
It’s not about polygamy.

It’s just about money.  And trying to deny basic rights to ANYBODY is wrong.

Ok, I’ll bite, how is it about money?

In Fla, and in most states you can leave your money to anybody.
Generally with no will, in most states your spouse gets a lot.

Most people don’t make a will; are you saying that it will go to bro and
sisters if there’s no will, or nieces and nephews?  Instead of the
partner?

Er, it used to be that your main asset was your house—actually probably
still is; most states have joint tenancy with right of survivorship, so
you just title your real estate accordingly.

Of course, gays have kids and the kids would take.

Fla has that pesky homestead thing, but you can waive that.

Or is it that people give to anti gay religious types when they stomp
around and make a big fuss?

Ah, there’s health insurance.  This could make a difference of a lot of
money, if you extend rights to new gay spouses or domestic partners.

But I just don’t see it being all about health insurance.

Trooper - 23 May 2008 08:35 PM

and urge them to vote no on amending our Constitution.  This document guarantees rights. It should not be used to take them away.  Massachusetts didn’t fall apart 4 years ago when marriage was allowed for all people, and it won’t happen here either. 

We are your children, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, neighbors, co-workers and friends.  Marriage is one right I would like to have.  Is it really asking that much?

It’s not asking too much! No Amendment!

Hi Lawyleriz!

Here’s how I interpret the “hurting your marriage” thing.  Family is the heart of our culture.  Take the polygamy example instead.  All of a sudden, now it’s legal and your husband comes home and wants to add a nice little college student to your family.  It’s not a mid-life crisis anymore, the law says that’s fine and normal.  My guess is you would be none too happy.  I DO believe that if anything and everything goes, family and society do fall apart.  People would stupidly do whatever feels good (a la the housing market) and everything falls to crap (a la the housing market).  To you and I gay marriage may not constitute a step in the direction of chaos, but to others it does.  I think that’s seen as the “harm”. 

I don’t see gay marriage as a step towards chaos, but I do think it’s unfortunate that good people with good intentions for all involved can’t have these discussions without being villified.  It helps no one, least of all the nice, hard-working gay couples just trying to have regular life.  I truly believe most people really do just want what’s best, but can’t have reasonable discussions w/o being labeled anti-gay or a religious whacko.  I think that’s why you only hear the extreme religious opinions and arguments.

I 100% believe the marriage system in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress would never, ever work in reality.  I love that book.  But Heinlein is a pervert.  In other books (yes, books plural) he goes on about how great father-daughter sex would be and how that should be A-okay in society. Yuck.  Heinlein himself went on to have an “open” marriage his second marriage and guess how that worked out.  Great book though.  It’s my favorite along with Starship Troopers.  I never understood why Stranger in a Strange Land is considered a classic.  I thought is was definition of lame.

4Walls,

With all due respect, can you please stop lumping my (now) legitimate thoughts of marriage in with polygamy ?    (However, I am pleased that you refrained from throwing animals into the mix).  The new law dictates only two people can join in marriage.  Two people, regardless of gender.  Two, not eight, not three.

I hear you telling us that you are ok with gay marriage, so why then throw out this ridiculous hypothetical “for discussion” ?  It’s not a reality.  If people are thinking that my marriage will eventually lead up to legalized polygamy….well, I guess I don’t even know how to respond. 

Regarding “family”.  Of course, in your world, the ideal is to raise a child with a Mother and a Father.  In my world this is not going to happen, so we’ve just adapted.  I’m not sure where the idea that “Mom and Dad” raising a child was the best way to go.  I realize it’s the “normal” course of action, the accepted practice, but again…who says it’s best and why?  Plenty of single Moms (and Dads!) have done just fine.  In fact, the last Democratic President of the United States of America was the product of a single parent household !  One Mom.  No Dad.  Not too shabby. (ok, ok….I know).

Most of my lesbian friends have children.  They make conscious efforts to have male role models interact as much as possible…but THEY are the parents.  Two loving, capable, respectable soccer moms.  My perception is that a family revolves around love and there is plenty of that happening.  These are well adjusted children and to my knowledge, every last one of them is heterosexual.  (Myth # 458 debunked)  In time studies will be done comparing them to the children raised heterosexuals parents.  Until then, I’ll just see the living examples I have in front of me and dare anyone to consider them less fortunate.  I would laugh if you said you felt sorry for them.  They are spoiled little brats !   They want for nothing !

For the record, I don’t think you are a homophobe at all.  We can have discussions about this topic…I’ll be glad to share my opinion because this is my reality.  Open dialogue is always good. 

4walls4me - 26 May 2008 04:20 PM

Hi Lawyleriz!

Here’s how I interpret the “hurting your marriage” thing.  Family is the heart of our culture.  Take the polygamy example instead.  All of a sudden, now it’s legal and your husband comes home and wants to add a nice little college student to your family.  It’s not a mid-life crisis anymore, the law says that’s fine and normal.  My guess is you would be none too happy.  I DO believe that if anything and everything goes, family and society do fall apart.  People would stupidly do whatever feels good (a la the housing market) and everything falls to crap (a la the housing market).  To you and I gay marriage may not constitute a step in the direction of chaos, but to others it does.  I think that’s seen as the “harm”. 

I don’t see gay marriage as a step towards chaos, but I do think it’s unfortunate that good people with good intentions for all involved can’t have these discussions without being villified.  It helps no one, least of all the nice, hard-working gay couples just trying to have regular life.  I truly believe most people really do just want what’s best, but can’t have reasonable discussions w/o being labeled anti-gay or a religious whacko.  I think that’s why you only hear the extreme religious opinions and arguments.

I 100% believe the marriage system in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress would never, ever work in reality.  I love that book.  But Heinlein is a pervert.  In other books (yes, books plural) he goes on about how great father-daughter sex would be and how that should be A-okay in society. Yuck.  Heinlein himself went on to have an “open” marriage his second marriage and guess how that worked out.  Great book though.  It’s my favorite along with Starship Troopers.  I never understood why Stranger in a Strange Land is considered a classic.  I thought is was definition of lame.

Before things get too stupid around here, I’m going to opine on this post.
 
In reverse-order… Heinlein was simply taking state-regulated marriage to it’s logical conclusion: contracts. His examples were pure speculation in a world where he created the stimuli that resulted in whatever mutation of the marriage law he happened to be portraying. But they were always based on the idea that logic and reason would dictate changes, not custom. This line of speculation was also applied to the incest taboo as it relates to genetics rather than superstition. Futhermore, he had 3 wives and zero children… and there isn’t one shred of evidence that he ever had an open marriage so I invite you to provide a link that backs up your claim.

 Reasonable discussion requires reasonable people that debate honestly and stick to the facts. It has been my experience that the only people who open speak about gay marriage are those who either want to be married or want to use the issue to advance their own political agenda. I think the majority of people could give a fuck one way or the other because they have more pressing issues. Often those same people define “what’s best” as whatever directly benefits them with the least effort possible. That being said, if someone came up to me and began a conversation about gay marriage rights with “what’s next, polygamy?“ I would laugh at them until they crawled back into their cave.
 
You opened with a sterotypical older male bringing home a younger woman and saying “look what we’re going to marry!“ to his middle-aged wife. What you failed to do is think it through. Just because the man wants to add a third, it doesn’t mean the wife has to stick around. A marriage is a legal entity and each member has rights, including the right to petition for divorce. In other words, even if multi-partner marriages were legal if the wife was not happy with her husbands intentions, she could get a divorce… just as she would today if her husband decided he wanted a mistress against his wife’s wishes. If things would be the same either way, then your definition of “harm” is bogus. In case you haven’t noticed, this entire country’s history has been a slow and steady migration along the “anything and everything goes” road. From royal subjects to self-rule, from slaves to free men, from being legally barred from owning property to running for President, from “whites only” restrooms to the (probable) Democratic nomination, from Sandra Dee to Pamela Lee, this country evolves as we strip away a custom of inequality and replace it with an equal guarantee of freedom. It can not result in chaos unless those wishing to restrict those rights become chaotic themselves in an effort to suppress the rights of others. Not only is that anti-thetical to what this country is, it’s in direct conflict with the content of the U.S. Constitution and the intentions of those who signed it.

Trooper - 26 May 2008 08:29 PM

I’m not sure where the idea that “Mom and Dad” raising a child was the best way to go.  I realize it’s the “normal” course of action, the accepted practice, but again…who says it’s best and why?  Plenty of single Moms (and Dads!) have done just fine.  In fact, the last Democratic President of the United States of America was the product of a single parent household !  One Mom.  No Dad.  Not too shabby. (ok, ok….I know).

Most of my lesbian friends have children.  They make conscious efforts to have male role models interact as much as possible…but THEY are the parents.  Two loving, capable, respectable soccer moms.  My perception is that a family revolves around love and there is plenty of that happening.  These are well adjusted children and to my knowledge, every last one of them is heterosexual.  (Myth # 458 debunked)  In time studies will be done comparing them to the children raised heterosexuals parents.  Until then, I’ll just see the living examples I have in front of me and dare anyone to consider them less fortunate.  I would laugh if you said you felt sorry for them.  They are spoiled little brats !   They want for nothing !

Trooper, here’s some unsolicited advice. Find a new argument to support gay parenting, because this one sucks. The idea of “a mom and dad being the best way to go” came from over FIVE THOUSAND years of recorded history. As much as I support the right of gay people to get married and have kids, they are not nor have they ever been a majority in any society or time on this planet and procreation between to gay lovers was out of the question until relatively recently. Since the population keeps growing at such a rapid rate, it’s a safe bet that the whole man/woman thing has the approval of Mother Nature. The best that can be said is that there isn’t much more than anecdotal evidence on gay parent’s either way. But questioning the success/result of the tradtional family in raising children is like questioning if farming is a good idea; the results have been in for a while already.

Look… single parent homes are at a major disadvantage and account for the majority of the youth that end up in legal trouble. You are a cop, you know I’m right. While there may be a few hundred examples of success, the prisons are filled with a few million examples of failure. The economic disadvantage is staggering, and the time the parent is required to work leaves the child in the care of the schools, the cops, or themselves. Bill Clinton’s mom did it in a poor state over a generation ago, but if Bill hadn’t been a brilliant student he would be living in a trailer in Hope to this day. A college-educated single parent with a job and regular child-support checks might be at less of a disadvantage, but unfortunately that is the exception in single-parent households, not the rule. Most single parents weren’t given much of a choice on the “single” part.

If you want to argue in support of gay parents, focus your efforts on what they have in common with straight parents: every new mom starts off with the same instruction manual (meaning none), they also had parents to learn from, homosexuality isn’t a disease so the children have just as much of a chance of growing up straight as every other child on the planet, etc. H