CA Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban

[Ernst]

Land of the free*
*void where prohibited, some restrictions may apply.



California high court upholds gay marriage ban
By LISA LEFF, AP

SAN FRANCISCO — California's Supreme Court upheld the state's gay-marriage ban Tuesday but said the 18,000 same-sex weddings that took place before the prohibition passed are still valid — a ruling decried by gay-rights activists as a hollow victory. Demonstrators outside the court booed, wept and yelled, "Shame on you!" Activists said they would go back to the voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal the ban.

In a 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George, the court rejected arguments that the ban approved by the voters last fall was such a fundamental change in the California Constitution that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

"We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right of voters to define marriage in the California Constitution," said Andrew P. Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, the leading group behind the initiative. "The voters have decided this issue and their views should be respected."

As for the thousands of couples who tied the knot last year in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California, the court said it is well-established principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to be, and that was not the case with Proposition 8.

Moreover, the court said it would be too disruptive to apply Proposition 8 retroactively and dissolve all gay marriages.

Doing that would have the effect of "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by this state's highest court," the ruling said.

While gay rights advocates accused the court of failing to protect a minority group from the will of the majority, the justices said that the state's governing framework gives voters almost unfettered ability to change the California Constitution.

The decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse, holding signs and waving rainbow flags. Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest. More than 150 protesters who blocked a street were arrested, with citations for failure to obey a police officer and jaywalking.

About 80 protesters rallied outside the Los Angeles County clerk's office, where marriage licenses are issued. They waved rainbow flags and carried signs that read "Repeal Prop 8 in 2010."

In San Francisco's Castro district, where many gay men and lesbians live, the large rainbow gay pride flag that flies in the neighborhood's Harvey Milk Plaza had been lowered to half-staff and a black stripe put on the top.

"We're relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to marry those they love," said Amber Weiss, 32, who was in the crowd at City Hall, near the courthouse, with her partner, Sharon Papo. They were married on the first day gay marriage was legal last year, June 17.

"I feel very uncomfortable being in a special class of citizens," Papo said.

Jeanne Rizzo, 62, who was one of the plaintiffs along with her wife, Pali Cooper, said: "It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over. I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."

A small group of Proposition 8 supporters also gathered outside the court.

"A lot of people just assume we're religious nuts. We're not. But we are Christians and we believe in the Bible," said George Popko, 22, a student at American River College in Sacramento, where the student government officially endorsed Proposition 8.

In the state capital, Republican state Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo, the incoming minority leader, said the court's decision "reaffirmed the principle that the people's votes do matter."

The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. For a while, that put California — the nation's most populous state — back in its familiar position in the vanguard of social change; at the time, Massachusetts was the only other state to allow gay marriage.

In what gay activists called their "Summer of Love," same-sex couples from around the country rushed to get married in California for fear the voters would take away the right at the ballot box. In November, Proposition 8 passed with 52 percent approval.

As the fight went on in California, Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage, bringing to five the number of states that allow same-sex couples to wed.

In California, gay rights activists argued that the ban was improperly put to the voters and amounted to a revision — which required legislative approval — not an amendment. But the justices disagreed.

The court said that while the ban denies gay couples use of the term "marriage," it does not fundamentally disturb their basic right to "establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one's choice and to raise children within the family." California still allows gay couples to form domestic partnerships.

In their 136-page majority ruling, the justices said it not their job to address whether the ban is wise public policy, but to decide whether it is constitutionally valid, while "setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

Justice Carlos Moreno, who had been under consideration as President Barack Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, was the lone dissenter.

He said denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a "drastic and far-reaching change."

"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," Moreno said. "Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office fought the ban, said: "Today we are faced with a disappointing decision. But I think we also know it could have been worse."

Gay rights supporters could also appeal in the federal courts, arguing Proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, experts said.

[SMCengineer]

Haha, nice asterisk. Liberals are fighting the wrong cause. No government, state or otherwise, has the authority to grant you the right of freedom of association! It's a basic human right.

[thegodfather]

I'm going to propose Referendum 9, the Defense of Marriage act, whereby f**king IDIOTS who allowed Referendum 8 to pass are no longer allowed to marry or reproduce. I'd like to see this goto the SCOTUS...

[Panzerfaust]

Good, **** the malfunctioning people.

[DSM4Life]

But gays will destroy this strong, unbreakable bond that a man and women share. Oh wait, whats this :

Divorce Rate - U.S.A.

Divorce rate in America has shot up to unexpectedly high level. The rising trend in US divorce rates has caused concern in political, social and religious circles of the country.

According to the current divorce rate statistics, 50% of the marriages end in divorce. National center for Health’s divorce rate statistics foresaw a downward trend in US divorce rates i.e. up to 43%. But in 2002, census bureau revised the predicted divorce rate in America back to 50%. However, some recent divorce rate statistic shows the predicted US divorce rates as approximately 40%.

According to divorce rate statistics of 2003, divorce rate in America fell by 5.6%. This might seem to be a big decrease in divorce rates in US as per divorce rate statistics. But this drop is mainly because of the decrease in collective divorce rate of American states of Washington, North Carolina, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Iowa, Colorado, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Nevada.
Statistics of Divorce Rate in America
Statistics of divorce rate in America show that in the years 2002-2003 US divorce rate dropped by 30.04% in Nevada.

An increase in the US divorce rates in the state of Delaware showed a significant rise. Here, divorce rate statistics show an increase of 64.72%.

Divorce rate statistics show that couples without children have a higher divorce rate in America. US divorce rates in couples who have children is slightly lower.

The children of divorced parents are prone to divorcing 4 times more than the children of couples who are not divorced.
Divorce Rate Statistics of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Marriages
Various studies on US Divorce rate show significant differences when a comparison is made in 1st, 2nd and 3rd marriage, divorce rate in America.

* Divorce rate in America after first marriage is from 41% to 50%.
* US divorce rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67%
* After 3 marriages the US divorce rate is from 73% to 74%


http://www.aboutdivorce.org/us_divorce_rates.html

[spywizard]

But gays will destroy this strong, unbreakable bond that a man and women share. Oh wait, whats this :

Divorce Rate - U.S.A.

Divorce rate in America has shot up to unexpectedly high level. The rising trend in US divorce rates has caused concern in political, social and religious circles of the country.

According to the current divorce rate statistics, 50% of the marriages end in divorce. National center for Health’s divorce rate statistics foresaw a downward trend in US divorce rates i.e. up to 43%. But in 2002, census bureau revised the predicted divorce rate in America back to 50%. However, some recent divorce rate statistic shows the predicted US divorce rates as approximately 40%.

According to divorce rate statistics of 2003, divorce rate in America fell by 5.6%. This might seem to be a big decrease in divorce rates in US as per divorce rate statistics. But this drop is mainly because of the decrease in collective divorce rate of American states of Washington, North Carolina, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Iowa, Colorado, Rhode Island, Minnesota and Nevada.
Statistics of Divorce Rate in America
Statistics of divorce rate in America show that in the years 2002-2003 US divorce rate dropped by 30.04% in Nevada.

An increase in the US divorce rates in the state of Delaware showed a significant rise. Here, divorce rate statistics show an increase of 64.72%.

Divorce rate statistics show that couples without children have a higher divorce rate in America. US divorce rates in couples who have children is slightly lower.

The children of divorced parents are prone to divorcing 4 times more than the children of couples who are not divorced.
Divorce Rate Statistics of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Marriages
Various studies on US Divorce rate show significant differences when a comparison is made in 1st, 2nd and 3rd marriage, divorce rate in America.

* Divorce rate in America after first marriage is from 41% to 50%.
* US divorce rate after second marriage is from 60% to 67%
* After 3 marriages the US divorce rate is from 73% to 74%


http://www.aboutdivorce.org/us_divorce_rates.html

Gays that i know don't want "marriage" and all community property issues that it comes with...

and most fortune 100 companies already extend medical to "domestic partners"

and if you have a terminal illness you're an idiot if you don't have a living will, and when they admit you a coarse of treatment is already determined..

If you are out of your mind, an advocate that is disinterested in prolonging your painful life will be assigned..

Soo?? what's the deal??

[DSM4Life]

Gays that i know don't want "marriage" and all community property issues that it comes with...

and most fortune 100 companies already extend medical to "domestic partners"

and if you have a terminal illness you're an idiot if you don't have a living will, and when they admit you a coarse of treatment is already determined..

If you are out of your mind, an advocate that is disinterested in prolonging your painful life will be assigned..

Soo?? what's the deal??

You already know my opinion on it. I just like to poke fun.
Can i poke you ?

[Tock]

Ya, lots more problems are caused by divorce than by gay marriage. Yet, the self-righteous anti-gay pharisees worked themselves into a tizzy about the few who want to actually get married, and do absolutely nothing about the millions with children who get divorced.
Lord knows how many hundreds of billions of taxpayer $$$ ends up as welfare payments to broken heterosexual families, and how many of the children of broken homes end up without adequate parenting, and go on to commit crimes which get them taxpayer-funded stays at the Graybar Hotel.

As Jesus once said, "Straining at a gnat, swallowing a camel."


----------------------------------------------------
Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/pro...ohibit-divorce

A Petition for a California State Proposition that Prohibits Divorce Between Heterosexual Married Couples

Divorce destroys the sanctity of marriage and its powerful influence on the betterment of society. This proposition would keep the very meaning of marriage from being transformed into nothing more than a contractual relationship between two adults. Prohibiting divorce between heterosexual married couples will keep the interests of children and families intact. We will continue to celebrate marriage as the union of husband and wife, not as a relationship between "Party A" and "Party B." The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

And for those of you who voted yes on Prop 8 but disagree with this petition...Why? This petition is copied and pasted from literature from your website, ProtectMarriage.com, but applied to Divorce instead of Gay Marriage. So how can you argue with your own words?

[Tock]

Gays that i know don't want "marriage" and all community property issues that it comes with...

I don't want to get married. I know lots of gays who don't want to get married either. On the other hand, I do know a few who do. But every gay person I know wants the same rights and responsibilities that every heterosexual person has under the law.

What's so unreasonable about that?

[DSM4Life]

I don't want to get married. I know lots of gays who don't want to get married either. On the other hand, I do know a few who do. But every gay person I know wants the same rights and responsibilities that every heterosexual person has under the law.

What's so unreasonable about that?

From our conversation before, hes fine with giving gays 100% legal rights just not the word "marriage."

Like i said before, i am not fighting for a word but for my rights regardless of what its called.

[SMCengineer]

Good, **** the malfunctioning people.

As much as you're opposed to gay marriage, for whatever reason, you should be much more opposed to government dictating who you can and can't enter into a private contract with. And even more opposed to the government assuming authority of licensure over marriage in general. As if you need to ask permission from the state. What an absurd notion.

[spywizard]

You already know my opinion on it. I just like to poke fun.
Can i poke you ?

I am gay for pay..

[Tock]

I can see this issue two ways . . .

1) Let's call heterosexual's arrangements "marriage" and gay arrangements "civil union."
2) "Seperate but Equal" is not equal; the same legal relationship that comes with the same rights and responsibilities should be given the same name.

Personally, if I was going to get married to my sweetie, I wouldn't care what it was called, as long as it was a legal as what everybody else had.
Then again, I know people who are into tradition and formal church services with robes & etc and fancy ceremonies, and for these people, the label attached to the arrangement is important. In their minds, if a bunch of self-righteous pharasaical fundamentalists lobby for a different name for the same thing, then for them it is not the same thing. I guess they want the right for not only the same thing, but the right to have the government call it the same thing.


As far as I'm concerned, I'm ready to march with a group of either (1) or (2) whenever I see 'em. I'm in Texas after all, where they still have the law on the books that makes gay sex illegal, and anything would be an improvement.

From our conversation before, hes fine with giving gays 100% legal rights just not the word "marriage."

Like i said before, i am not fighting for a word but for my rights regardless of what its called.

[spywizard]

I don't want to get married. I know lots of gays who don't want to get married either. On the other hand, I do know a few who do. But every gay person I know wants the same rights and responsibilities that every heterosexual person has under the law.

What's so unreasonable about that?

Oh?? reasonability?? that's what politics and human rights and political correctness is??

subjective isn't it...

[Tock]

As much as you're opposed to gay marriage, for whatever reason, you should be much more opposed to government dictating who you can and can't enter into a private contract with. And even more opposed to the government assuming authority of licensure over marriage in general. As if you need to ask permission from the state. What an absurd notion.

100% correct.

The only thing that's more absurd is the government using a religious ritual (church marriage) to establish a person's status before a government agency.

IMHO, it really would be best to leave religious marriage to churches, and then recognize
civil unions as voluntary contracts between people. And when babies are created, then the parents are obliged to look after the child's needs. Any parents not trying to meet their obligation should be arrested and sent to the county workhouse.

[Tock]

Oh?? reasonability?? that's what politics and human rights and political correctness is??

subjective isn't it...

Evidentally, not all posts are about reasonability . . .

[Panzerfaust]

As much as you're opposed to gay marriage, for whatever reason, you should be much more opposed to government dictating who you can and can't enter into a private contract with. And even more opposed to the government assuming authority of licensure over marriage in general. As if you need to ask permission from the state. What an absurd notion.

Oh, I agree with that for sure. I'd leave that to the religious sector.

[MuscleScience]

Oh the battles we choose to fight.

We should be more concerned about the degradation of the American Family than who marries who. There are far left liberals and far right conservatives and about 70% of America is in-between the two. Yet the voice of moderation seems to be over shadowed by the voice of the Zealous. We as Americans draw a line in the sand and say we are Republican or we are Democrats and there is no common ground. You are either for us or against us, never anything in between. If you dont agree your a bigot, if you dont agree then your a sinner. Bullshit is what I say, I am no sheep and I will not be bullied to one side or the other. If I dont completely agree that gays should be married that doesnt make me an anti-gay bigot. If I dont completely agree that there should be a ban on gay marrage, that doesnt make me a sinner or have poor morals. It means I believe there is a common ground and a solution to our problem that we have in common.

I firmly believe that people like Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann are the ones destroying American. One is far right and one is far left, they both try to bully the common person into believing their over zealous point of view behind the veil of scare tactics and bigotry. Doom and gloom or racist bastard, pick your poison with people like this.

[Panzerfaust]

Oh the battles we choose to fight.

We should be more concerned about the degradation of the American Family than who marries who. There are far left liberals and far right conservatives and about 70% of America is in-between the two. Yet the voice of moderation seems to be over shadowed by the voice of the Zealous. We as Americans draw a line in the sand and say we are Republican or we are Democrats and there is no common ground. You are either for us or against us, never anything in between. If you dont agree your a bigot, if you dont agree then your a sinner. Bullshit is what I say, I am no sheep and I will not be bullied to one side or the other. If I dont completely agree that gays should be married that doesnt make me an anti-gay bigot. If I dont completely agree that there should be a ban on gay marrage, that doesnt make me a sinner or have poor morals. It means I believe there is a common ground and a solution to our problem that we have in common.

I firmly believe that people like Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann are the ones destroying American. One is far right and one is far left, they both try to bully the common person into believing their over zealous point of view behind the veil of scare tactics and bigotry. Doom and gloom or racist bastard, pick your poison with people like this.

You are right, but its too late. America is ****ing screwed.

[MuscleScience]

You are right, but its too late. America is ****ing screwed.

I think in time we can get it together. One way or another something big is going to happen in the world, much like it did to our parents and grandparent during the 1930 and 1940s. The only thing is how will the world look once whatever happens happens. But I am confident that America will again be the shining city upon a hill!

[DSM4Life]

I am gay for pay..

What are you doing sat night ?

Oh the battles we choose to fight.

We should be more concerned about the degradation of the American Family than who marries who. There are far left liberals and far right conservatives and about 70% of America is in-between the two. Yet the voice of moderation seems to be over shadowed by the voice of the Zealous. We as Americans draw a line in the sand and say we are Republican or we are Democrats and there is no common ground. You are either for us or against us, never anything in between. If you dont agree your a bigot, if you dont agree then your a sinner. Bullshit is what I say, I am no sheep and I will not be bullied to one side or the other. If I dont completely agree that gays should be married that doesnt make me an anti-gay bigot. If I dont completely agree that there should be a ban on gay marrage, that doesnt make me a sinner or have poor morals. It means I believe there is a common ground and a solution to our problem that we have in common.

I firmly believe that people like Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann are the ones destroying American. One is far right and one is far left, they both try to bully the common person into believing their over zealous point of view behind the veil of scare tactics and bigotry. Doom and gloom or racist bastard, pick your poison with people like this.

bigot

[SMCengineer]

Oh, I agree with that for sure. I'd leave that to the religious sector.

Right, so than you can't, in any logical or moral sense, agree with the state for asserting it's usurped right to uphold a gay marriage "ban." It's inconsistent even for the most ardent opponent of gay marriage.

[spywizard]

What are you doing sat night ?





bigot

and by you calling him that makes you a???? bigot???


A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own..

when does it stop??

and i'm busy saturday night...

[yourmom]

The people voted, it was upheld. Get over it. I get irritated when something is passed by the people by majority, then, the minority vote gets it over turned in the Supreme Court. Maybe there is hope for us after all.

And stop with the Church and State thinking. That's not even in our Constitution.

[Ernst]

So I guess you'd like to see us go back to segregated schools?

Not a very well thought out argument. It's a question of civil rights IMO.

[DSM4Life]

and by you calling him that makes you a???? bigot???


A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own..

when does it stop??

and i'm busy saturday night...

I am not paying you to talk......


(i called him a bigot to poke fun )

[SMCengineer]

The people voted, it was upheld. Get over it. I get irritated when something is passed by the people by majority, then, the minority vote gets it over turned in the Supreme Court. Maybe there is hope for us after all.

And stop with the Church and State thinking. That's not even in our Constitution.

Haha, so the majority has control over the minority? Or better yet 50+1 is all it takes to rob others, including yourself, of their liberty whenever they deem proper? That's the worst arguement ever and is paramount to why democracies DO NOT work or ever could work.

[SMCengineer]

And stop with the Church and State thinking. That's not even in our Constitution.

Also, this has nothing to do with "seperation of church and state," which liberals like to naively throw around, rather it's about contract law.

[Panzerfaust]

Right, so than you can't, in any logical or moral sense, agree with the state for asserting it's usurped right to uphold a gay marriage "ban." It's inconsistent even for the most ardent opponent of gay marriage.

Yeah, I guess you are right but the whole idea is stupid and makes absolutely no sense. Being gay serves no purpose to mankind, it is a malfunction, nothing more nothing less.

They are gay yet there is almost always a masculine and a femine partner. lol

Makes as much sense as Elton John looking at a Hustler.

[DSM4Life]

Yeah, I guess you are right but the whole idea is stupid and makes absolutely no sense. Being gay serves no purpose to mankind, it is a malfunction, nothing more nothing less.

They are gay yet there is almost always a masculine and a femine partner. lol

Makes as much sense as Elton John looking at a Hustler.

And you hetero's have done such a good job for mankind

Keep up the good work.