May 15, 2008
Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban: California Supreme Court Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage
According to ABC 7--who just mercifully brought The View to a screeching halt to inform viewers--the California State Supreme Court struck down the gay marriage ban. So: same-sex marriage is now legal, at least according to the California Supreme Court.
CBS 5 online reports:
The court ruled the state's one man-one woman marriage laws violate the civil rights of same-sex couples. Justices ruled in favor of gay and lesbian couples, the city of San Francisco and two gay rights advocacy groups who filed suits that were consolidated.
And, hopefully, the ruling will stick. right now a "constitutional amendment measure providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California has been submitted," and needs signatures to get verified. Also, same-sex marriage is still illegal federally. Read more about today's ruling here.
Anyway, congratulations, homosexuals. Feel free to register here and here and here.
| Advertisement: SFist Continues Below!
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
It's about mother fucking time.
I don't even know what to say. Just yes! and Please let it stick!
YES!! Amen generati!
Score!!!
I hope the California Supreme Court isn't suffering from heat stroke
Welcome to the darkside, my gay and lesbian friends...
I just registered at Nordstrom.
No small kitchen appliances please.
I'm reading this ruling and it's larger than just marriage. It establishes that gays are a protected minority class like blacks, and women.
From the ruling notice the word STATUTES (plural) not just statute:
Instead, our decisions make clear that the most important factors in deciding whether a characteristic should be considered a constitutionally suspect basis for classification are whether the class of persons who exhibit a certain characteristic historically has been subjected to invidious and prejudicial treatment, and whether society now recognizes that the characteristic in question generally bears no
relationship to the individual’s ability to perform or contribute to society. Thus,
“courts must look closely at classifications based on that characteristic lest outdated social stereotypes result in invidious laws or ractices.” (Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, 18, italics added; see, e.g., Arp v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., supra, 19 Cal.3d 395, 404-406.) This rationale clearly applies to statutory
classifications that mandate differential treatment on the basis of sexual
orientation.
In sum, we conclude that statutes imposing differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation should be viewed as constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution’s equal protection clause.
I can has weddingcakz!
also, this means i can no longer make scenes at friends' weddings. sad.
Haven't we suffered enough?
What a great day.
This really is wonderful news. I love that I (now) live in a state where tolerance is the norm. Throughout this entire debate I have never, not once, heard any sort of logical, reality-based reason for denying gays the right to marry. Or how this will "ruin" my marriage. I honestly didn't see how the court could possibly rule any other way, but I'm glad they based their decision on law and not politics. Not all supreme courts do that now, you know.
I think I need champagne now.
Huzzah!
Yay!
Sweeeetness! Yay!
Finally! News that doesn't make my stomach hurt.
also, this means i can no longer make scenes at friends' weddings. sad.
You can still get out-of-control drunk at the reception...
I bet U-HAUL well be short on rentals tomorrow.
Good news.
Only downside - gay divorce. It's bad enough with two heteros going toe to toe.
And Brock, maybe you can now make a scene at your own wedding!
Oh noes! I'm running out of excuses to not get married!
yeah for us all. now lets beat back that damn amendment to the CA constitution.
I am interested to see how the courts handle gay divorce, and even gay couples who enter into child custody battles.
Either way, glad to see that everyone has the right to marry. I still don't understand the arguments against gay marriage.
Anyone able to tell me how it's possible that this will be overturned by voters? If the Supremes have called marriage a "fundamental constitutional right", then how can that be taken back? I thought it was sort of the end of the line...
I'm not normally the "emotional type" but I'm getting a little choked up reading the ruling. WOO FUCKING HOO! I feel like a full blown citizen right now!
A constitutional amendment has been proposed to make marriage opposite sex only. Apparently it has already been circulated for signatures, but the question now is whether it has enough.
The interesting thing is that even if it does make the ballot, Californians will have at least a few months to see how the sky does not, in fact, fall with same sex marriage legal (cf. Massachusetts) and will therefore be at least a little bit less likely to approve the ban.
@ gf: The voter initiative is for a constitutional amendment. A state constitutional amendment is a law that the Cal. S. Ct. would have to interpret and follow. A court can't say that one constitutional amendment is unconstitutional based on another portion of the constitution. A court can determine that constitutional provisions conflict and must be reconciled or that one amendment is more specific than another and therefore governs in a particular situation.
So the present ruling saying that a gay marriage ban violates the state constitution would have to be reconciled and reconsidered if a gay marriage ban amendment is passed.
Courts have already handled gay divorce and gay custody battles. Civil unions have to be formally dissolved just like marriages.
And history marches on.
Nice, isn't it?
@martooni How would a state constitutional ban be reconciled with the Federal Constitution? State bans violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment:
The US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence Vs. Texas laws could not discriminate against the intimate acts of us gays. Marriage is about as intimate as you can get.
Good job! I seriously can't believe it's taken this long. Now we just need to move on to the greater goal of abolishing marriage altogether.
I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I just don't think that the government should in any way even remotely be involved in marriage. It should be a meaningless religious or social ritual between the two (or more) people who decide to be involved with it.
halle-fucking-lujah!
Let the public sex and burning cities begin!
=0)
This is great!
Only troubling thing: it only takes 50% to amend the constitution? That seems a little too easy.
It's far too hot today to leap for joy, so as soon as the temperature returns to normal around here I will do a festive flip.
Champagne sounds so good on a sweltering day such as this, so thanks, gays, for giving me an excuse to bust out a bottle!
@Jamison:
Marriage has pretty much nothing to do with intimacy. It's all about legality, laws, and the way the state sees you. You can get plenty intimate, straight or gay, without getting married. You can't legally be a married couple with all the rights and legal nonsense that it entails, without actually having the state-approved documents and it being recognized as a valid union.
The important parts are really having to do with children, property, finances and death arrangements. None of which require being married to deal with, but it's nice to have the "defaults" without excessive legal documentation when something happens and you need to deal with them.
Intimacy has nothing to do with it, and honestly if the only reason you want to get married to someone is because you love them and want to spend the rest of your life with them, do you need the State of California to tell you that it's okay?
The important parts might not "require" being married, but it sure makes it a helluva lot easier. If Terri Schiavo had not been married, she'd still be drooling on herself in a hospital bed.
The prospect of that alone is worth getting married for.
poppers are on me!
Fabulous day for fabulous news!
I certainly don't need the state to tell me anything. I've been happily unmarried to the same woman for the past eight years and living together for five. Frankly I still feel like it would be early to get married and at 26 I still feel too young.
Oh and the weather today was fucking wonderful. Actual summer weather! Not freezing godawful 60-degree fallish hell. I got to wear shorts. Anyone against warm weather (e.g. mid to upper 80s) probably also doesn't enjoy looking at people in thin, skimpy clothes.
Oh, poor gays.
@bluecanary -
Us poor, single, unmarried folk are still able to fill out wills and Powers of Attorney, regardless of our martial status. Marriage should not be a vehicle for your DNR request - perhaps that's the attitude that has gotten us into this regulatory mess.