California Supreme Court to decide on gay marriage ban

[kfrost06]

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - California's highest court will give its ruling on the legality of the state's ban on gay marriages on Thursday, a long-awaited milestone that could have a nationwide impact on the issue.

A statement on the California Supreme Court website in San Francisco said the opinion would be made available by 10 am (1700 GMT) after hearing arguments for and against the ban at in March.

The court is addressing the constitutionality of a controversial amendment to the civil code which states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The state already allows for civil unions between same-sex couples. Supporters of gay marriage stress that Proposition 22, adopted in a 2000 referendum, violates citizens' constitutional rights.

Denying same-sex couples marriage rights would paint California as "indifferent" to how gays are treated both inside and outside the state, warned San Francisco chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart.

"If the state says that this is a marriage, it may be that some other states would not recognize it, but it would be sending the message that California considers its lesbian and gay couples equal."

In 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, citing California's guarantee of equal protection under law, began allowing same-sex marriages.

Several hundred gay couples were married at the city hall, but the procedures were subsequently invalidated. The case has now made its way to the state Supreme Court.

California Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger said "there is a rational basis for the state to adhere to the common and traditional definition of marriage" as affirmed by Proposition 22, and stressed that registered same-sex couples are provided with "all the rights and benefits associated with marriage."

[kfrost06]

This is California so make no mistake they will legislate their own agenda HOWEVER their ruling in favor of gay marriage will force the issue into the 2008 presidential election. The majority of Americans, the vast majority, are against gay marriage and this will serve to help elect a Republican president. My prediction, only time will tell.

Ruling comes out tomorrow at 10a.m.

[Tock]

John McCain is hoping the court rules in favor . . . that will energize the anti-gay people to get out and vote against the Dems, and that's gonna be his only chance to win the presidency . . .

[Carlos_E]

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
The case involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter- approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.

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. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current 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 signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

The cases before the California court were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

[kfrost06]

This is California so make no mistake they will legislate their own agenda HOWEVER their ruling in favor of gay marriage will force the issue into the 2008 presidential election. The majority of Americans, the vast majority, are against gay marriage and this will serve to help elect a Republican president. My prediction, only time will tell.

Ruling comes out tomorrow at 10a.m.

Exactly as I predicted, CA judges legislating their will over the will of the people.

[Carlos_E]

Exactly as I predicted, CA judges legislating their will over the will of the people.

Lets see where McCain runs to on the issue. If he runs to the right he may alienate independents. If he sticks to the middle he'll alienate the right. This could be a win/win situation for Obama considering he attracts independents.

[kfrost06]

Lets see where McCain runs to on the issue. If he runs to the right he may alienate independents. If he sticks to the middle he'll alienate the right. This could be a win/win situation for Obama considering he attracts independents.

your dreaming, main stream America is fearful of such things and he will undoubtly unify the right on this and grab a lot of Democrats too. The question is where will Obama stand on this, he will have to do his best to avoid it if at all possible.

[Carlos_E]

your dreaming, main stream America is fearful of such things

From what I'm reading the political blogs today I'm not dreaming. (No, not gay blogs.)

The question is where will Obama stand on this, he will have to do his best to avoid it if at all possible.

Obama is against the marriage amendment and for civil unions.

[spywizard]

mcCain doesn't even have to try..

If obama gets the nod, it will be a landslide for mccain, the 40% of the dem women won't vote for him, his only hope is the republicans don't show up..

[Carlos_E]

kfrost06 how old are you? Just wondering.

[Carlos_E]

mcCain doesn't even have to try..

If obama gets the nod, it will be a landslide for mccain, the 40% of the dem women won't vote for him, his only hope is the republicans don't show up..

Right now they say they won't because they're pissy about Hillary. Come November they will. McCain wants to overturn roe vs wade. Pro choice women will not vote for McCain. NARAL (largest pro choice org.) endorsed Obama yesterday.

[Carlos_E]

From the ruling:

After carefully evaluating the pertinent considerations in the present case, we conclude that the state interest in limiting the designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples, and in excluding same-sex couples from access to that designation, cannot properly be considered a compelling state interest for equal protection purposes.

To begin with, the limitation clearly is not necessary to preserve the rights and benefits of marriage currently enjoyed by opposite-sex couples. Extending access to the designation of marriage to same-sex couples will not deprive any opposite-sex couple or their children of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes, but simply will make the benefit of the marriage designation available to same-sex couples and their children. ...

While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children. As discussed above, because of the long and celebrated history of the term "marriage" and the widespread understanding that this word describes a family relationship unreservedly sanctioned by the community, the statutory provisions that continue to limit access to this designation exclusively to opposite-sex couples — while providing only a novel, alternative institution for same-sex couples — likely will be viewed as an official statement that the family relationship of same-sex couples is not of comparable stature or equal dignity to the family relationship of opposite-sex couples.

Furthermore, because of the historic disparagement of gay persons, the retention of a distinction in nomenclature by which the term "marriage" is withheld only from the family relationship of same-sex couples is all the more likely to cause the new parallel institution that has been established for same-sex couples to be considered a mark of second-class citizenship.

Finally, in addition to the potential harm flowing from the lesser stature that is likely to be afforded to the family relationships of same-sex couples by designating them domestic partnerships, there exists a substantial risk that a judicial decision upholding the differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples would be understood as validating a more general proposition that our state by now has repudiated: that it is permissible, under the law, for society to treat gay individuals and same-sex couples differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals and opposite-sex couples.

In light of all of these circumstances we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional.

[Carlos_E]

Lets see where McCain runs to on the issue. If he runs to the right he may alienate independents. If he sticks to the middle he'll alienate the right. This could be a win/win situation for Obama considering he attracts independents.

Hmm... I didn't realize this. John McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

[Kratos]

I'm curious what is gained by keeping gay people from getting married? How does it help or hurt me dependent on what gay people call their relationship? I thought you were against the govt. dictating moral values kfrost? That's what they are doing..."I don't agree with your lifestyle, it doesn't fit with my ideals of religion, so you can't call yourself married." I could care less what they call their relationship, how they view religion and how their lifestyle fits into their views.

I'm not pro gay people or anything, I'm just not against gay people. I don't see why anybody cares what the gay people are doing.

[SMCengineer]

I'm curious what is gained by keeping gay people from getting married? How does it help or hurt me dependent on what gay people call their relationship? I thought you were against the govt. dictating moral values kfrost? That's what they are doing..."I don't agree with your lifestyle, it doesn't fit with my ideals of religion, so you can't call yourself married." I could care less what they call their relationship, how they view religion and how their lifestyle fits into their views.

I'm not pro gay people or anything, I'm just not against gay people. I don't see why anybody cares what the gay people are doing.

You have Kfrost confused with a conservative.

[Carlos_E]

I'm curious what is gained by keeping gay people from getting married? How does it help or hurt me dependent on what gay people call their relationship? I thought you were against the govt. dictating moral values kfrost? That's what they are doing..."I don't agree with your lifestyle, it doesn't fit with my ideals of religion, so you can't call yourself married." I could care less what they call their relationship, how they view religion and how their lifestyle fits into their views.

I'm not pro gay people or anything, I'm just not against gay people. I don't see why anybody cares what the gay people are doing.

Kfrost thinks gay marriage will destroy the traditional family. As if straight people we're doing a good job of destroying it already.

[kfrost06]

You have Kfrost confused with a conservative.

your absolutely right, everyone knows conservatives are for gay marriage and gay adoption and pro-abortion, I am just a bleeding heart liberal, what can I say.

What a great arguement Blome!

[kfrost06]

Kfrost thinks gay marriage will destroy the traditional family. As if straight people we're doing a good job of destroying it already.

Many straight people are destroying the traditional family but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[BgMc31]

Kfrost you still have yet to give us a reason how same-sex marriage affects you directly.

I don't consider myself a gay rights advocate, I just don't see any justification for discrimination. I have gay neighbors (very affluent area in Vegas) and gay family members and neither have an impact on my life either positive or negative. To me its a non-issue and I'm eager to hear from anybody a legitimate reason behind disallowing two, consenting, adults (regardless of gender), the ability to have their marriage legally recognized.

[SMCengineer]

your absolutely right, everyone knows conservatives are for gay marriage and gay adoption and pro-abortion, I am just a bleeding heart liberal, what can I say.

What a great arguement Blome!

Conservatives, whether they are pro-gay marriage or not, know it's not a governmental issue. Abortion and gay adoption, on the other hand, are state issues not federal issues. Marriage is a religious institution and as such should not be legislated by government. As Kratos said, which you ignored, the government has no place dictating moral values nor does it have any place in private contracts. As long as another individual isn't encroaching on your rights or the rights of another individual than the issue stays out of government! That is a leading conservative trait. Now, ask yourself, who's encroaching on who's rights?

Rethink your position homie.

“The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can't see any way in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else,”

-Barry Goldwater

[Carlos_E]

Many straight people are destroying the traditional family but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Back in the day people though interracial marriage would destroy the traditional family. It's the same argument.

[BgMc31]

Conservatives, whether they are pro-gay marriage or not, know it's not a governmental issue. Abortion and gay adoption, on the other hand, are state issues not federal issues. Marriage is a religious institution and as such should not be legislated by government. As Kratos said, which you ignored, the government has no place dictating moral values nor does it have any place in private contracts. As long as another individual isn't encroaching on your rights or the rights of another individual than the issue stays out of government! That is a leading conservative trait. Now, ask yourself, who's encroaching on who's rights?

Rethink your position homie.

“The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can't see any way in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else,”

-Barry Goldwater

Hey Blome, I agree with everything you said, especially the quote from Goldwater. But obviously I'm not a conservative. Because I believe the government does have a level of social responsibility. And I support the right to bear arms and the death penalty so what does that make me? lol? Confused probably, right?!

[buttercup]

i would love if all homosexuals would move to cali. great let them all be married and have parades every day, no judgements, no persecution or ridicule. its a win win in my opinion, i dont have to deal with them and they dont have to deal with me. that is just my narrow minded, homophobic opinion. (hope i dont get kicked off for posting it, the mods are sensitive if you disagree with homosexuality, but have no problem other kind of bashing.)

Banned member

lotaquestions
buttercup

They always give themselves away.

-Admin

[kfrost06]

Kfrost you still have yet to give us a reason how same-sex marriage affects you directly.

Counterfeit money hurts us all - everyone's money is devalued. Counterfeit doctors hurt us all - patients die. Counterfeit marriage hurts us all - everyone suffers when motherless/fatherless children are kept from thriving in ways only married mother-father homes can provide. Redefining marriage inevitably leads to the end of marriage. The best example is what's happened in Scandinavia since same-sex marriage has been legalized: marriage has disappeared.

When government pretends something's a marriage that isn't, children are hurt, society is weakened, and anyone who objects is attacked. We tolerate a wide range of lifestyles, belief and opinion - but not all are officially promoted in law. Where does the devaluing of marriage stop? Do we wait until "marriage" is imposed regardless of age, sex, blood or number of partners?

[kfrost06]

Back in the day people though interracial marriage would destroy the traditional family. It's the same argument.

Not even close to the same arguement, interracial marriage never re-defined marriage, it's still one woman and one man. Inter-raccial marriage can produce children and has been happening since the beginning of time, not so for same sex marriage.

[kfrost06]

Conservatives, whether they are pro-gay marriage or not, know it's not a governmental issue. Abortion and gay adoption, on the other hand, are state issues not federal issues. Marriage is a religious institution and as such should not be legislated by government. As Kratos said, which you ignored, the government has no place dictating moral values nor does it have any place in private contracts. As long as another individual isn't encroaching on your rights or the rights of another individual than the issue stays out of government! That is a leading conservative trait. Now, ask yourself, who's encroaching on who's rights?

Rethink your position homie.

“The rights that we have under the Constitution covers anything we want to do, as long as its not harmful. I can't see any way in the world that being a gay can cause damage to somebody else,”

-Barry Goldwater

Do the children have rights? How about a right to a mother? Every child has a right to a mother.

[Carlos_E]

The best example is what's happened in Scandinavia since same-sex marriage has been legalized: marriage has disappeared.

Bull.

Kurtz is mistaken in maintaining that gay unions are to blame for changes in heterosexual marriage patterns. In truth, the shift occurred in the opposite direction: Changes in heterosexual marriage made the recognition of gay couples more likely. In my own recent study conducted in the Netherlands, I found that the nine countries with partnership laws had higher rates of unmarried cohabitation than other European and North American countries before passage of the partner-registration laws. In other words, high cohabitation rates came first, gay partnership laws followed.

Rather than scapegoating gay couples as the attackers from which marriage needs "defending," pundits and politicians alike should look to no-fault divorce, prenuptial agreements and legal recognition of heterosexual cohabitation as the real culprits of weakened marriage. As the evidence indicates, societies where gay couples have the rights of marriage seem to be doing just fine.

[T]here is no evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry weakens the institution. If anything, the numbers indicate the opposite. A decade after Denmark, Norway and Sweden passed their respective partnership laws, heterosexual marriage rates had risen 10.7% in Denmark; 12.7% in Norway; and a whopping 28.8% in Sweden. In Denmark over the last few years, marriage rates are the highest they've been since the early 1970s. Divorce rates among heterosexual couples, on the other hand, have fallen. A decade after each country passed its partnership law, divorce rates had dropped 13.9% in Denmark; 6% in Norway; and 13.7% in Sweden. On average, divorce rates among heterosexuals remain lower now than in the years before same-sex partnerships were legalized.

In addition, out-of-wedlock birthrates in each of these countries contradict the suggestion by social conservatives that gay marriage will lead to great increases in out-of-wedlock births and therefore less family stability for children. In Denmark, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births was 46% in 1989; now it is 45%. In Norway, out-of-wedlock births jumped from 14% in 1980 to 45% right before partnerships were adopted in 1993; now they stand at 51%, a much lower rate of increase than in the decade before same-sex unions. The Swedish trend mirrors that of Norway, with much lower rates of increase post-partnership than pre-partnership.

Where does the devaluing of marriage stop? Do we wait until "marriage" is imposed regardless of age, sex, blood or number of partners?

Here:

what about the "slippery slope" argument — that same-sex marriage would start a dangerous movement toward legal recognition of socially unacceptable relationships? This hasn't happened in Scandinavia; 17 years later, there are still no calls for recognizing polygamy, incestual marriage or marriage to animals. Danes you ask about the slippery slope think you are joking. They realize that same-sex marriages serve essentially the same goal as opposite-sex marriages: lifetime commitment to your better half, the person who completes you.

Yes, you can find advocates for polygamy and other changes in marriage in Scandinavia and among queer theorists and academics in the United States. But there have always been such advocates, going back to the days of the "free love" movement among radicals in the U.S. in the early 20th century. You can find advocates for anything, complete with a Yahoo group and an organization of the like-minded. Google has been a great resource for slippery-slope fearmongering. But the fact is, neither polygamy nor these other destinations down the slope have caught on as serious legal reform as a result of protecting gay families anywhere in the world.

What we can say with confidence so far, based on the evidence, is that the sky doesn't immediately fall when a society recognizes gay relationships. As time passes without the sort of cataclysmic consequences predicted by opponents of gay marriage, we will be able to say more. We may soon be able to say, with good evidence to back it up, that recognzing gay marriage leads to greater stability in gay families, with benefits to gay couples, children raised in gay families, and communities. The signs so far are pointing in the right direction.

[Carlos_E]

Do the children have rights? How about a right to a mother? Every child has a right to a mother.

You are really hung up on this mother thing. Did you grow up without a Mom?

[Carlos_E]

[kfrost06]

When government pretends something's a marriage that isn't, children are hurt, society is weakened, and anyone who objects is attacked.

^^Like I said

[kfrost06]

You are really hung up on this mother thing. Did you grow up without a Mom?

No I grew up with a mother I love deeply please do not bring my mother into this, it's not necessary to go that direction.

[kfrost06]

In Norway, half of all children are now born to unmarried mothers. In Pettersen's county, 82% of couples have their first child out of wedlock. The numbers are similarly high for Sweden and Denmark. While many couples marry after having the first or second child, it's clear marriage in parts of Scandinavia is dying.

In the USA, the percentage of children born to unwed mothers has more than tripled since 1970. But there's still a stigma in the USA for women who have a child out of wedlock. Not so in the Nordic countries.

Even though there are state churches in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, few people go. Church attendance in Sweden, for example, is just 7% for men and 11% for women.
(In the USA, 59% of people say they go to church or synagogue at least once
a month.)

[kfrost06]

Laila Dåvøy, the minister for Norway's department for children and family
affairs and a member of the Christian Democratic Party, is at a loss to
explain why people don't want to get married. "The traditional marriage in
our society is more and more unusual than living together, and I'm very
concerned about this."

[Kratos]

Counterfeit money hurts us all - everyone's money is devalued. Counterfeit doctors hurt us all - patients die. Counterfeit marriage hurts us all - everyone suffers when motherless/fatherless children are kept from thriving in ways only married mother-father homes can provide. Redefining marriage inevitably leads to the end of marriage. The best example is what's happened in Scandinavia since same-sex marriage has been legalized: marriage has disappeared.

When government pretends something's a marriage that isn't, children are hurt, society is weakened, and anyone who objects is attacked. We tolerate a wide range of lifestyles, belief and opinion - but not all are officially promoted in law. Where does the devaluing of marriage stop? Do we wait until "marriage" is imposed regardless of age, sex, blood or number of partners?

Talk about a slippery slope into the shitter. Outta sight, outta mind. Also you don't change the ability of a committed gay couple to have children.

[Kratos]

What does church attendance have to do with gay people? You give gay people equal rights, then everybody stops going to church? Sounds like they are independent issues to me.

[Carlos_E]

No I grew up with a mother I love deeply please do not bring my mother into this, it's not necessary to go that direction.

It was not meant as an attack. I wondered if you grew up without a Mom and that's why you think everyone must have one.

[Kratos]

energy prices, economy, foreign policy, need to upgrade transportation system, the list goes on and on....

nope the important thing is keeping the gay people from getting married...wtf, they have better things to do, seriously.

[Carlos_E]

In Norway, half of all children are now born to unmarried mothers. In Pettersen's county, 82% of couples have their first child out of wedlock. The numbers are similarly high for Sweden and Denmark. While many couples marry after having the first or second child, it's clear marriage in parts of Scandinavia is dying.

In the USA, the percentage of children born to unwed mothers has more than tripled since 1970. But there's still a stigma in the USA for women who have a child out of wedlock. Not so in the Nordic countries.

Even though there are state churches in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, few people go. Church attendance in Sweden, for example, is just 7% for men and 11% for women.
(In the USA, 59% of people say they go to church or synagogue at least once
a month.)

The problem is these statistics in no way relate to gay marriage. It's like trying to blame gay marriage for global warming or hurricane katrina. (Wait, someone did that already.)

[Carlos_E]

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, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

People can talk about activist liberal judges all they want. But the simple truth is that what has changed these past twenty years is not the nature of judges, but our collective understanding of what sexual orientation is. Behind all this is a deep, deep shift in our consciousness from thinking of gay people as defective straight people who perform certain sexual acts to their being the moral equivalent of heterosexuals, capable of forming relationships and building families as well as anyone. This is at the core of the generational divide: not that young people are more "liberal" or "progressive" than their parents. On an issue like abortion, they're not. It is simply that the next generation has grown up with a different definition of who gay people are. They see gay people as interchangeable with straight people. They don't think we're inferior to them. Because they know us.

Once you alter that basic understanding, then re-fitting the law to account for it may, at first blush, look liberal or activist, but in fact, it's just removing what now appears a massive anachronism and anomaly. Yes: this means that the court is dong something the first Californians would have regarded as outrageous. But that goes for so many other issues as well, especially race and gender, where our core definitions have shifted with time and knowledge.

Is this shift an ideological one? I don't believe so. It's an empirical one, based on increased knowledge of who gay people are. Once you absorb this knowledge, this evidence, this truth, legislative schemes which arbitrarily separate gay people from straight people - and put gay relationships in a separate and unequal box - seem grossly unfair, and certainly a violation of the equality promised in various state constitutions. I think that's what has really happened in the two decades I've been arguing about this. We have altered our view of homosexuality. And the alteration is not one of degree but of kind. And so the law must adapt. Maybe it has happened too quickly for easy cultural digestion. But it is inevitable if we are not now to replace knowledge with fear, and inclusion with, yes, prejudice.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...ng-throug.html

[Kärnfysikern]

The best example is what's happened in Scandinavia since same-sex marriage has been legalized: marriage has disappeared.

Id say that the main cause nobody cares about marriage here anymore is because nobody cares about religion. There isnt much reason to get married if your not religious. The only reason to get married if you take away the religion is for some economic benifits.

In Norway, half of all children are now born to unmarried mothers. In Pettersen's county, 82% of couples have their first child out of wedlock. The numbers are similarly high for Sweden and Denmark. While many couples marry after having the first or second child, it's clear marriage in parts of Scandinavia is dying.

Unmarried doesnt mean single. Most are happy enough just living togheter. It doesnt matter to the child if his parents are married or not.

But there's still a stigma in the USA for women who have a child out of wedlock. Not so in the Nordic countries.

Thats a great thing imo.

Even though there are state churches in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, few people go. Church attendance in Sweden, for example, is just 7% for men and 11% for women.
(In the USA, 59% of people say they go to church or synagogue at least once
a month.)

If its even 7% of men I would be suprised. Through my life so far I have known very very few that attend church reguarly or even consider themself religious. If your a devoute christian in sweden people will think you a bit odd. Not even the christian democrats(political party) talks about religion during elections because they know that if they start to sound overly religious they will lose big time.