SCOCAL rules 4-3 in favour of gay marriage

[Xisiqomelir]

The Associated Press: California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

By LISA LEFF – 23 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — 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.

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 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.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is 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.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "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 Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

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

The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.

Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.

Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.

Associated Press writers Terence Chea, Jason Dearen, Juliana Barbassa and Evelyn Nieves contributed to this report.

Sadly, the Valley is filled with redneck retards, so I know this is going straight on the ballot in Nov. Vote, people!

Also, gratz to our 2 gay members that I know of, and all the rest I don't!

[Spindel]

I think this is a great thing for the gay community.

EDIT:// We have had apartnership (not marriage) law since 1994 which gives gay couples the same legal rights as married people. The big debate here right now is if the church will accept marriage.

[rounds1]

The church is under no legal obligation to accept gay marriage, and I suspect that since the Bible calls it blasphemy, they won't be too accepting anytime soon.

Of course, there are always those rogue congregations that go against the norm.

[Xisiqomelir]

Originally Posted by rounds1

The church is under no legal obligation to accept gay marriage, and I suspect that since the Bible calls it blasphemy, they won't be too accepting anytime soon.

Of course, there are always those rogue congregations that go against the norm.

what is this

[Matthew]

'Bout time.

[codenamelenny]

good news.

[Deathmonkey7]

Originally Posted by rounds1

The church is under no legal obligation to accept gay marriage, and I suspect that since the Bible calls it blasphemy, they won't be too accepting anytime soon.

Of course, there are always those rogue congregations that go against the norm.

You do realize that realistically, marriage has nothing to do with the church. It's a status that is given out by the governing body, only the actual ceremony takes place in a church, and that's only if the couple is christian. They can have a wedding ceremony anywhere they want to, or none at all. Either way, they are now allowed the right to the legal status of being married.

[Romanc]

The institution of marriage has mainly three bases, a religious, a cultural and a legal base. When all three are in accordance with each other we can say that they are universally accepted. Anything which is not accepted in all three bases will be a matter for dispute.

The matter of gay marriage has its strongest base in law, which is reflected in this topic from California. Cultural acceptance usually follows some time later, after it has been legal for a while, and nothing horrible happens. Religious acceptance is another case entirely, and also depending on which religion.

In Scandinavia gay partnership/marriage has a high legal protection, and is gaining a wider cultural acceptance. This will lead the churches to evaluate their stance so as not to alienate themselves from their own members. It may be different elsewhere.