May 15, 2008
California Recognizes Gay Marriage
Photograph by joeholmes on Flickr
The California Supreme Court struck down the gay marriage ban and legalized gay marriage. The decision will go into effect in 30 days.
Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in the majority opinion, "In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.” You can read the court's ruling (PDF).
Where does this leave New York? Back in 2006, a NYC judge ruled gay marriage was allowed, but the city argued the State Constitution didn't allow it. The Court of Appeals eventually rejected gay marriage, much to the dismay of Chief Justice Judith Kaye, who wrote, "I am confident that future generations will look back on today's decision as an unfortunate misstep."
Last year, the State Assembly voted to allow gay marriages in NY, but the Senate didn't pass the bill. More recently, in February, an appellate court found NY State must legally recognize valid out-of-state same-sex marriages, the way it does the out-of-state marriages of straight couples. We predict the phones of events/wedding planners in California are ringing off the hook!
Here's a guide to gay marriage and civil unions around the country.
|
way to go, california! new york, we're waiting!
whatever. you know it's going to get overturned again on appeal or something. It always does. It's like a endless cycle of "Yes" gay marriage and then "No" then it gets kicked up to the Supreme court and then they try to weasel out of deciding anything.
Yay for 2008, we are so modern.
can one overturn the supreme court of california? i guess there's always the federal, but i thought that the feds left it up to individual states...
Eh, it would be nice if the state legislatures would get together the cojones to do it the old fashioned way - by passing a constitutional amendment, or whatever piece of legislation is necessary. Judges shaping significant social policy is never a good thing, regardless of what should be done. Look at Roe v. Wade. Now the right-wing nut jobs are going to get their panties in a twist once more, calling for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and I am going to have to yet again increase my monthly donation to the Human Rights Campaign to keep them at bay. Judicial decisions like this probably hurt the cause of gay marriage more than it helps.
Can we get "medicinal" marijuana like they have too?
kthanx
The California Supreme Court can only be overturned if taken to the US Supreme Court. The US Supreme Court will likely either reject the appeal (if they can -- not sure, it's been a long time since law school), OR uphold the decision since marriage has always been an issue left to the states. For the Supreme Court to rule otherwise would be surprising and an abrogation of state's rights -- especially in a heavily Republican SCOTUS where state's rights are purportedly paramount.
I wouldn't be surprised if the SCOTUS granted certiorari then overruled the CA Sup Ct. The conservative justices are all about judicial restraint, states' rights and framer's intent--until there's some conservative social agenda they feel like striking down. Scalia is the biggest hypocrite in that sense.
Let them get married & tax them like straight couples.
McGreevey divorce is just a taste of it - imagine the full drama when married gays/lesbians get into divorce proceedings.
Great point #5. This should've been done by a freely elected legislature, not by judicial fiat of unelected judges. (by standards of NYC, I could be considered a right-winger, but obviously judicial activism grates people on both sides)
The Marriage Industrial Complex just got another economic boost.
I can't believe this was even an issue in this day and age. Step by step.
Let's push for free KY with every marriage.
Okay, all future prospects of overturning it aside, this is great! It is (to borrow Bloomie's fav word) unconscionable that in such an advanced society there would exist such inequality.
I support something completely different. De-legislate marriage altogether. For most of civilized history marriage was an arrangement between individuals. The state only recently got into the business of marriage. This is a case in which we would be better off devolving.
jink: gay marriage is now legal in ny. the ny supreme court decision recently recognized the marriage of a gay couple who were married in canada, hey. they were pushing for equal rights and benefits in the workplace. the decision said that they must be treated as married spouses in ny.
the ny court of appeals (highest court in ny) refused to hear the case, essentially locking in gay marriage rights for everyone in ny.
what's different about the california case is the constitutional argument of marriage vs domestic partners, not a marriage in one place being recognized in another. this is the singular decision that will ripple throughout the country.
If government must be involved, two adults who want to marry should be allowed to do so by the government. Agreed that it's sad this continues to be an issue (and republicunts will bring it up in the presidential race, guaranteed).
Mfer, how do we recognize marriage once government is not involved? I'd like to know because marriage does, of course, have legal concerns, such as divorce and child support. I'm all for getting government as far removed as possible, but it seems that someone has to legally recognize a marriage.
Nik13, somehow I doubt gay divorce will be any worse than straight divorce, however much anyone wants to imagine it being more "dramatic" or what have you. It's not like straight divorce is handled civilly by most divorcing couples...
Have you ever watched Divorce Court? Yeah.
Now it's New York's turn to distinguish itself by stepping up and standing up for the rights of all of its citizens. Long a bastion of progressive politics, the state needs to pass marriage equality legislation now, and continue this trend.
I dunno...I wish it didn't take judicial involvement to protect human rights, but I feel the American votership is too stupid/backwoodsy to vote for equal protection under the law on their own. Luckily our constitutions (state and federal) tend to be smarter than we are so the courts can do what's right without having a majority of us screw it up with our own prejudices. Without judicial intervention, we'd still have Jim Crow in the South. Seriously.
Gay marriage is the first step. Next, gay adoption. But we won't really be free until gay abortion is legal in all 50 states!
Without judicial intervention, we'd still have Jim Crow in the South. Seriously.
Judicial intervention gave us "separate but equal".
American votership is too stupid/backwoodsy
I guess that is supposed to be code for Republicans and red states in general but you are aware that over half of the voters in California voted against gay marriage? Not saying they are right of course. Gay marriage and unions are a pretty new concept even in such "progressive" places as Canada and Europe. Simply calling your opponents stupid rarely wins the fight. So I am going to agree with solidago that these things are best handled by legislatures even if it takes longer. I strongly believe that abortion would not still be an issue today other than because of Roe v. Wade. Abortion was becoming legal state by state in the 1960s and 70s. All Roe did was empower the religious right.
My argument was non-partisan. My point is, Americans are slow to change. Be it religion, lack of education, bad media, whatever...we are behind a lot of the industrialized world on human rights issues. We still have a death penalty.
Sure, judicial decisions gave us "separate but equal" but it was also the judiciary that found that same doctrine unconstitutional.
I know over half the voters voted against gay marriage, but it's not there decision. It's not a decision at all. It's a matter of the constitution and most unbiased, learned scholars of law would read California's constitution to state that there is no constitutional way to bar such marriages. We are ruled by documents that we can only hope are more fair than we are.
It was not my intent to call my oponents stupid (but if the shoe fits..)...my point was there is an issue of basic FAIRNESS and EQUALITY that trump popular opinion. Legislatures are seldom better avenues toward change because they are beholden to popular opinon...and it's best not to rock the boat, even if you think something is right, because you will not be re-elected.
That being said, while I am ardently pro-choice, you're right: Roe v. Wade is awful jurisprudence from a legal standpoint.
Either way, I just enjoy the thought of conservatives having a total cartoonish apoplectic meltdown vis a vis Spongebob or Ren & Stimpy.
Gay marriage is not an issue about right or wrong.
It is an issue about equal rights.
A big problem in this world is that we judge others.
Time to grow up and accept others for what and who they are.
Life is too short for prejudice and hate.
I am,
George Vreeland Hill