CA Supreme Court: Yes to Marriage for All!
Yay, the rec list!
What a great day for all Liberals, people of every gender and sexual orientation, and especially us Californians!
The California State Supreme court has declared that the ban on Gay Marriage is illegal.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/doc uments/S147999.DOC
Here's a link to the NYT article discussing the decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html?_r=1&oref=sloginSAN 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 justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George. The cases 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.
This represents a very real victory for proponents of equal rights here in CA. Many of my associates at Bay Area law schools attended the arguments, and we had been hoping that the decision would go this way. The judges seemed pretty skeptical as to the quality of the arguments presented by the State, and those presenting the defense seemed dispirited and a little upset that they were having to support a position they didn't believe in.
This is likely to go back to the ballot initiative this Fall; there will always be enough mouth-breathers to get stupid stuff on the ballot. So the fight isn't over yet!
Congrats to equality!
From the decision (hat-tip to Slim Tyrrany!):
[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes -- the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage -- cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest. A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects "second-class citizens" who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.
I'd like to mention that this issue is very personal to me. Living here in the Bay Area, we have become very close to many people, of all ages and sexual orientations, and the idea that the rights of some of these people is less then others has always been impossible for me to accept. There's nothing different, or unAmerican, or wrong, about people wanting to live a happy and stable life together.
I'm an Obama supporter. I don't want to turn this into a candidate diary, b/c it has nothing to do with him. But this is something that we had the Audacity to Hope for, for a long time now. It's a sign to me that positive change can happen, if people work hard at it. Let that be the lesson for Obama supporters everywhere: it's the hard work that got this decision to go our way, NOT the sense that we were RIGHT. Being right on an issue is only the first step.
Cheers to you all!
|
|
|
Permalink :: 152 Comments :: Post a Comment
|