California Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage
by no_I_am_zoe

On Thursday, May 15th, in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban on gay marriage violated the state Constitution's equal protection guarantee. It stated a separate system of domestic partnerships was not equal to the right of civil marriages. The court drew on a 60 year old ruling that struck down a ban on interracial marriages for their decision. The ruling was worded in such a way that it would strike down nearly any law aimed to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

It also left open the possibility for the Legislature to use a term other than marriage for state-sanctioned unions as long as it was also applied to opposite sex couples and not used to distinguish between them.

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.
-read full Los Angeles Times article California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

The decision will take effect 30 days from the ruling, June 14th by my count, meaning civil marriage rights must be granted to same-sex couples who live in California and wish to marry. But this will likely not be the end of the battle. Enough signatures for a ballot initiative to amend the state's Constitution to ban same-sex marriage had already been turned in for placement on the November ballot. The supporters of the ballot initiative expect it to pass. However, Gov. Arnold Schwarteneggar stated that he respected the Supreme Court's ruling, and that he did not support a Constitutional amendment.

Thursday's decision makes California the second state in the U.S. to grant civil marriage rights to same-sex couples, Massachusetts being the first. Same-sex marriages in these two states are only legal within those two states, and are not recognized by federal law. I am not clear whether the marriage rights will transfer between the two states, though I don't know why they wouldn't.

Thursday's ruling sparked reaction around the world. On Friday,Pope Benedict restated the Churches position on marriage.

"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions," he said. from National Post article Pope restates gay marriage ban after California vote


Unitarian Universalist minister, Rev. Debra Haffner, wrote about her experience counseling and marrying couples of both same-sex and opposite-sex on at the Huffington Post.

I tell couples when I perform weddings, "You both know that although the state will make your union legal today and that this religious ceremony will bless you, it is only your commitment that will make this marriage real." But offering same sex couples the same rights, the same responsibilities, and the opportunity to participate in all that makes a marriage, including the use of the words, will help these couples and their children honor those commitments. read Rev Debra Haffner's post Celebrating the California Supreme Courts Decision on Marriage Equality

Personally, though I am thrilled about the California Supreme Court ruling and happy for gay Californians, I do worry about the national backlash, and that gay marriage will be brought to the forefront of the national election. It is not to say that I don't think it is an important issue, but it makes me angry that it becomes a wedge issue. Also, it seems that these sorts of rulings always spawn a push to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as one man to one woman. I know it's a long hard road and that change doesn't happen over night, I just wish people could see that we are just like everybody else.

 

For other bloggers reactions read
Dorothy Snarker's post My Weekend Crush at Dorothy Surrenders
Geeky Dragon Girl's post I now pronounce you gay and married at I Live Under a Rock
NYCROUGE's post "I love and adore you and I would be lucky to be in any union with you, civil or hostile." at Post No Bills: New York Adventures in Banality
Read the 172 page decision

Comments

 

Backlash or not, it’s a step in the right
direction

It also left open the possibility for the Legislature to use a term other than marriage for state-sanctioned unions as long as it was also applied to opposite sex couples and not used to distinguish between them.

This sounds like an ideal solution – and now that I’ve “met” Denise, I know that some gays don’t want anything to do with marriage b/c it stems from religion and patriarchy. What do you think? Do you want marriage, or would you be happy with a state-sanctioned union that would give you and BP the same rights as marriage?

I just wish people could see that we are just like everybody else.

Eventually, people will see it. But it will take time. I think that in our lifetime, gays will receive equal rights, but the stigma will still be there. It will take several more generations before gays are part of mainstream. Surely you believe it will happen? It can't stay this way forever.

Vered DeLeeuw
www.momgrind.com

 

Let it become a wedge issue...

I'm tired of suggestions that we sit on our hands and look pretty whilst others debate whether to throw us under a bus.

 

I'm quite patient (usually) when discussing this with those who are unsure and or unknowing, but in this case, the courts had to weigh in. In my opinion, the governor if in a private and weak moment, might well state he is rather relieved to have the court rule this way. And I don't believe he will let it be made into some sort of election campaign inspire those on the right through fear issue.

We need to be discussing this as a nation. We need to come to a new level of maturity. We need to rethink what we legally sanction for relationships. There have been strong hints this state will one day get to a more enlightened place about modern American families... and gay families are just one example of families who might find assistance in updating government's role in who benefits under such aw. 

 

 

nelle

 

I do not disagree with you,

I do not disagree with you, this is an issue that needs to be discussed nationaly.  However, at times like this, election crunch time, everything is reduced to soundbites and turned into tools used to divide the country for votes.  At this specific point in time, I don't think it would result in an actul discussion, that is what is angers me. The problem is that we, as a nation, are appathetic.  We live and debate by bumpersticker slogans and soundbites.  Maybe I'm just too pessimistic to think that an actual real discussion would lead to anything good.  

 

 

It is what is...

The court got to review the issue in an election year, nothing we can do about it. 

What really bothers me is that no Democrat save for Mayor Newsom who is somewhere near a national stage will do what really needs to happen - stop running from the damn issue like it is the plague coming at you.

When the candidates did the Logo thing earlier this year, the tiptoeing was quite a spectacle. If someone would actually stand and put forth fact about the issue, about what is right, instead of trying to walk a tight rope between two contentions, they might actually find many Americans are more open minded than they ever expected...

but right now they stand aside and let the noise makers strike fear into those who only visit the issue when someone screams 'the perverts are coming!'  They offer nothing reasonable in rebuttal.

And that is the real trap that awaits the Democratic nominee. Dancing won't cut it, because if you dance around the issue, it will look like it is a bad issue, and their hands are in the cookie jar. If they take it squarely on - as Obama did with the issue of his minister - he might find there is nothing to look sneakily ashamed about, and that the issue actually dropped from a potential sand trap in the road to the presidency.  

 

nelle

 

I realize it is what it is,

I realize it is what it is, I'm just saying it could turn out to be unfortunate timing.  I hope though, that a particular candidate will step up and show some real leadership on this issue. You hit on the real problem, none of national leaders have been actually standing up and leading in support of equal rights for GLBT people.  I think Obama has come the closest, and I want to, I have to believe that he wouldn't throw us under the bus if he thought that's what it would take to win the election.  The other democratic candidate though, plays both sides and I dont' trust one bit.

Yeah, the LOGO thing mostly made me a little irked.  Why did they so blatantly suck up and kiss Hillary's ass.  It was sickening.  

 

I guess maybe I'm a little

I guess maybe I'm a little confused by your question. If I were granted the same rights as a marriage through a state-sanctioned union, then how is that not a marriage?

What I want is equallity. I want to have the same rights and
protections under the law as any straight couple who gets a marriage
lisence. If it's called marriage or if it's called state-sanctioned
unions, I don't care, as long as the terminology and rights are the
same for all, gay or straight.

I'm actually not sure that the social stigma will ever fully go away. I think things will get better, and I think that we will see equal rights in my lifetime, but I don't think there will every be a day where there isn't a stigma to being gay.

zoe

gaymo

 

 

You answered my question

When you said that it is the same. I think so too. But what if straight couples can choose a "civil union" or a "marriage", but gay couples can only choose a "civil union"? Some will argue that it's still not full equality, even if the same rights and protections are granted under both arrangements. I would disagree, and it seems like you would too.

Really? You think there will always be stigma? You must be a pessimist by nature. I HAVE to believe that some day, not in our lifetime but sometime in the future, society will become advanced and sophisticated enough that people will look at each other and will not see gender, or skin color, or sexual orientation, or religion. Or maybe they will see it, but it will not matter. Perhaps I am overly optimistic. I've been accused of that before. 

Vered DeLeeuw
www.momgrind.com

 

I want to bite but

Don't think it's fair to bite and then not be able to interact with the comments while I'm trapped at the pool and then trapped in the car for five hours.

Quick overview...

Stigma - yes. Pessimist - no. Realist - yes.
Just like everyone else - no.
Being used - no.

I'll be back!

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

 

I think when it comes to

I think when it comes to state it should only be called on thing, be it civil union, or be it marriage, as long as it is called the same thing for everyone.  Now if you want to recieve the sacrament of marriage through your church, call it what you will as long as that doesn't give you any more rights with respect to the law. 

I think part of the problem we have with this debate, on a national level, is that many people don't see that there is marriage lisence that you get from your state which joins you in a legal partnership and has nothing to do with god or sanctity anything other than legal protections and benifits, and then there is what you do in your church with a priest/misister/rabi or whatever holy authority you chose to make your covinat with god.  What I care about is the recognition by the state, not the church.  

I'm not sure that I'm a pessimist, I think I'm more of a realist.  I think as long as there are churches like the catholic church, there will always be a stigma to being gay.  I use the catholic church as an example because that was the brand of religion my family subscribed too, so that's the one with which I am familiar.  I see the catholic church getting more conservative, not less.  Maybe that's just a backlash to modern culture and the pendulum will swing back the other way, but I don't there will ever be a time when homosexuality isn't seen as deviant behavior in the eyes of the church.  I think all we have to do is look at history to see that we, the humam race, will always see difference and always use it to divide people.  

 

Still an exciting step towards equality

I agree with all the previous commenters that this is a complicated issue, but still it's an exciting first step. I have a gay brother who lives in California, and it was thrilling to see how happy he was at this news.

Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen

 

Congratulations to your

Congratulations to your brother, that is exciting news for him.

 

Thanks Zoe

If they are able to get married, I definitely want to be there.

Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen

 

Civil Unions For All

I've written about this a bunch, but only from the experience of being the daughter of a gay man and having LOTS of gay friends who are as "married" as I am and raising amazing families.

My take is that "marriage" is a religious thing and that the state has no business offering anything but civil unions - and that EVERYONE has the right to one of those - Civil Unions For All!. In most states, you have to get all the paperwork done in the courthouse anyway, the marriage is really just a blessing...

As for optimism and a day when gay families will be recognized....  I think we'll get there, stigma free, in my lifetime. Maybe my world view is skewed by living in a bastion of liberal thinking, but....  So many of my daughter's freinds have gay parents, or bi-racial families or any number of other previously stigmatized manifestations of love. Are they free from all stigma now? No, not by a long shot. But every generation that is raised with it seeming normal is a HUGE step towards a future in which we recognize that love is love. 

___________
Alyssa Royse
JUST CAUSE: A Web Site To Save The World

Start Her Up: A blog for Women Entrepreneurs

 

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all gays and lesbians living in California.  This decision is a great step forward in true equality.  I am just a little jealous that my own country Australia can't seem to join the 21st Century where same-sex marriage/union is concerned.  Our goverment has decided that it will let the states have a same-sex couple registration, but will disallow any state that attempts to bring in a civil union because it looks too much like a marriage.  *sigh*  Maybe one day....

 

Dancing About Architecture - Blogging just got queerer.