CNN: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[jpillian]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html

California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a much-anticipated ruling issued Thursday, the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

Several gay and lesbian couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, sued to overturn state laws allowing only marriages between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California becomes the second state to allow same-sex couples to legally wed. Massachusetts adopted the practice in 2004, and couples don't need to be state residents to wed there.

Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Connecticut permit civil unions, while California has a domestic-partner registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some legal rights.

Seven other jurisdictions around the world have legalized same-sex marriage: Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, South Africa and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec.

San Francisco officials in 2004 allowed same-sex couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants crowding the city hall clerk's office. The first couple to wed then was 80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50 years.

"We have a right just like anyone else to get married to the person we want to get married to," Lyon said at the time.

One issue before the justices was whether San Francisco's laws carried legal weight when the rest of the state banned same-sex marriages. Gay rights advocates argued the state was violating their civil rights by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The state law in question is the Defense of Marriage Act, Proposition 22.

Oral arguments in the case in March lasted more than three hours, a sign of the political and legal issues at stake. Six cases were consolidated.

Same-sex marriages that were nullified by the law remain nullified, CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin said.

Groups saying they were promoting a pro-family agenda had vowed to fight a statewide law allowing same-sex marriage.

"The government should promote and encourage strong families," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. "The voters realize that defining marriage as one man and one woman is important because the government should not, by design, deny a child both a mother and father."

An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. The federal high court has never addressed the question of same-sex marriage.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Well, an appeal to the SC will probably get nowhere because it is a state law.

I suppose if some of the arguments were based on 14th amendment equal protection (which it seems some were) its possible... but this does not sound like a SC case to me.

[Zguy28]

Its a crazy world isn't it? Gays want to make commitments to each other and straights don't. :whoknows:

[Predicto]

The reporter is incorrect on his final point. No petition to the US Supreme Court is likely, and if one is made, it will not be accepted.

The case was decided based on the California Constitution. The US Supreme Court decides matters of federal law, and cannot tell California what the California Constitution says or means (unless the California Constitition conflicts with the Federal Constitution).

What IS going to happen is that people in California who do not like this ruling are going to put a measure on the ballot to amend the California Constitution, which is their right.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Isn't being against this just pure spite of gay people though?

I mean, gay marriage in absolutely NO WAY infringes on straight people. Or does it somehow?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The reporter is incorrect on his final point. No petition to the US Supreme Court is likely, and if one is made, it will not be accepted.

The case was decided based on the California Constitution. The US Supreme Court decides matters of federal law, and cannot tell California what the California Constitution says or means (unless the California Constitition conflicts with the Federal Constitution).

What IS going to happen is that people in California who do not like this ruling are going to put a measure on the ballot to amend the California Constitution, which is their right.

I think there is a slim chance if the opinion was based on the 14th Amendment. But, like I said, I agree its very unlikely it will be accepted by the SC.

[jpillian]

At its core, I do think issues like this should be handled at the state-level.

If you don't like the law, you will have the option of for instance moving to another state that is more in line with the way you think.

My question is, what effect does this have on how such unions are viewed at the federal-level in terms of federal income tax? Is it up to the state to determine if such unions are valid, and then the federal goverment must respect the legitimacy of the marriage when levying taxes? Just wondering how that relationship works.

[Kilmer17]

The reporter is incorrect on his final point. No petition to the US Supreme Court is likely, and if one is made, it will not be accepted.

The case was decided based on the California Constitution. The US Supreme Court decides matters of federal law, and cannot tell California what the California Constitution says or means (unless the California Constitition conflicts with the Federal Constitution).

What IS going to happen is that people in California who do not like this ruling are going to put a measure on the ballot to amend the California Constitution, which is their right.

Precicely. This is exactly the way these issues should be decided.

[Zguy28]

Isn't being against this just pure spite of gay people though?

I mean, gay marriage in absolutely NO WAY infringes on straight people. Or does it somehow?

Well, when you fundamentally (not to be confused with fundamentalists) are opposed to something, you generally feel that you have to stand against it or else you are silently condoning it.

Its kind of like how people in Germany stood by and watched them take the Jews and did nothing even if they disagreed. The silent masses were guilty on some level for what happened.

NOTE: I am not comparing homosexuals to Nazi's. It was merely a convenient and familiar event that served as an analogy.

[jpillian]

Isn't being against this just pure spite of gay people though?

I mean, gay marriage in absolutely NO WAY infringes on straight people. Or does it somehow?

The argument is that it is a way the state is condoning/"main streaming" what was once considered by the majority of citizens to be an immoral behavior.

You can agree or disagree with whether that's what it actually is doing, but I think that's at the core of the argument.

[Zguy28]

At its core, I do think issues like this should be handled at the state-level.

If you don't like the law, you will have the option of for instance moving to another state that is more in line with the way you think.

My question is, what effect does this have on how such unions are viewed at the federal-level in terms of federal income tax? Is it up to the state to determine if such unions are valid, and then the federal goverment is must respect the legitimacy of the marriage when levying taxes? Just wondering how that relationship works.

I agree. I'll even take it a step further, it should be handled on the more local level. Even in a state the diversity of values is incredible.

[Predicto]

I think there is a slim chance if the opinion was based on the 14th Amendment. But, like I said, I agree its very unlikely it will be accepted by the SC.

It was not based on the 14th Amendment at all.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It was not based on the 14th Amendment at all.

Just throwing it out there....

I just GLANCED at the actual opinion and found this:

"Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution."

So, I would say 0% chance the Supreme Court hears an appeal.

[Thiebear]

Isn't this the same Court that gets 72% of its ruling overturned at the real supreme courts...

[Zguy28]

Wait til they start going through nasty divorces. They may change their minds.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Isn't this the same Court that gets 72% of its ruling overturned at the real supreme courts...

Not sure what that figure is, or where you could be confused, but that just doesn't make any sense.

[DRSmith]

Wait til they start going through nasty divorces. They may change their minds.

2 women divorcing each other that would be nasty

[Predicto]

Isn't this the same Court that gets 72% of its ruling overturned at the real supreme courts...

No. That is the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (and the ovewhelming majority of its decisions are NOT overturned)

The California Supreme Court is the top of the California state court system, It has 6 Republican appointees and 1 Democratic appointee.

[Kilmer17]

Anyone know how much this decision will cost the state govt alone in benefit increases?

[Smoot Point Really]

Isn't being against this just pure spite of gay people though?

I mean, gay marriage in absolutely NO WAY infringes on straight people. Or does it somehow?

Actually, I have a problem with the word "marriage" used for any civil unions... The word "marriage" is born out of religious traditions. However, when I got married, my wife and I had a civil wedding (more like a contract) and a religious wedding that was my marriage.

The state should just offer civil unions (contracts) to any type of human tax-paying couple and then leave "marriage" for the Churches/Temples/Mosques to fight out the spiritual/social ramifications there.

I would even go as far as saying that "civil unions" could be treated entirely as a contract and wouldn't be tied to a sexual relationship at all. Any two tax-paying individuals who want to form a "civil union" (could be even a business relationship) and treated legally as one entity should be able to do this.

[DjTj]

Anyone know how much this decision will cost the state govt alone in benefit increases?

California already had a domestic partnership law, so I think they were already getting benefits.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5

[Predicto]

Anyone know how much this decision will cost the state govt alone in benefit increases?

Pretty much nothing. We have had registered domestic partnerships out here for a long time now.

[Smoot Point Really]

If not for Superman, Lex Luthor would've solved this issue forever...

[Predicto]

Actually, I have a problem with the word "marriage" used for any civil unions... The word "marriage" is born out of religious traditions. However, when I got married, my wife and I had a civil wedding (more like a contract) and a religious wedding that was my marriage.

The state should just offer civil unions (contracts) to any type of human tax-paying couple and then leave "marriage" for the Churches/Temples/Mosques to fight out the spiritual/social ramifications there.

I would even go as far as saying that "civil unions" could be treated entirely as a contract and wouldn't be tied to a sexual relationship at all. Any two tax-paying individuals who want to form a "civil union" (could be even a business relationship) and treated legally as one entity should be able to do this.

I think that makes a lot of sense.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually, I have a problem with the word "marriage" used for any civil unions... The word "marriage" is born out of religious traditions. However, when I got married, my wife and I had a civil wedding (more like a contract) and a religious wedding that was my marriage.

The state should just offer civil unions (contracts) to any type of human tax-paying couple and then leave "marriage" for the Churches/Temples/Mosques to fight out the spiritual/social ramifications there.

I would even go as far as saying that "civil unions" could be treated entirely as a contract and wouldn't be tied to a sexual relationship at all. Any two tax-paying individuals who want to form a "civil union" (could be even a business relationship) and treated legally as one entity should be able to do this.

I hear what you and some other people are saying, and actually maybe I overlooked it a little bit.

But, isn't calling something "gay marriage," as opposed to just "marriage," already differentiating it? I mean, if I say California just legalized gay marriage, no one is confusing that with the possibility that yesterday a man and a woman couldn't be married.

Maybe its a distinction without a difference, but I guess it just doesn't bother me.... not to tread on your own point though, which I think was valid.