May 15, 2008 07:37PM GMTMay 15, 2008 19:37:31

Question Stats

228 answers
1,537 comments
raves +29 -11
Share This Question

Is it right the California supreme court, with a vote of 4 to 3 should wipe out the ban on same sex marriages? This to me says why vote when they can just overturn what 61% wants.?

AS POSTED IN THE AP

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody not just in the state of California, but throughout the country will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

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

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

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.

But, "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," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.

Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.

Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.

_PLEASE REALIZE THIS IS AN AP ARTICLE.__
Add Image Add Video
resize
Loading Loading...
Top Comment
raves +68 -11 by Christopher

Answered Yes

Many who oppose same-sex marriage seem to argue their position based largely on God and religious convictions, not on a legal basis or interpretation of existing civil law.

Those who argue that the people have a right to vote on the matter of same-sex marriage misunderstand what this is about. This is not about "what the majority of people want." It is about rights as defined by our existing and long-accepted laws.

The recognition of civil rights is not traditionally put to the people. Rights are given, not removed, by the Legislature. They are interpreted and protected by the courts.

Would those with disabilities have free access? Would women vote? Would we have mixed-race marriages? Would African-Americans have the right to vote? Indeed, would they even be free if the decision had been put to the people? The advancement of civil rights - the rights of women, of people of color, of the physically challenged - has come about through the testing of our laws in our courts.

Every one of these topics in their day met with great opposition. How many of these rights would have been granted if put to the voter of the day?
If the people were asked to vote on these matters in the days in which the issue was initially addressed, when the topics were so emotionally char...
Many who oppose same-sex marriage seem to argue their position based largely on God and religious convictions, not on a legal basis or interpretation of existing civil law.

Those who argue that the people have a right to vote on the matter of same-sex marriage misunderstand what this is about. This is not about "what the majority of people want." It is about rights as defined by our existing and long-accepted laws.

The recognition of civil rights is not traditionally put to the people. Rights are given, not removed, by the Legislature. They are interpreted and protected by the courts.

Would those with disabilities have free access? Would women vote? Would we have mixed-race marriages? Would African-Americans have the right to vote? Indeed, would they even be free if the decision had been put to the people? The advancement of civil rights - the rights of women, of people of color, of the physically challenged - has come about through the testing of our laws in our courts.

Every one of these topics in their day met with great opposition. How many of these rights would have been granted if put to the voter of the day?
If the people were asked to vote on these matters in the days in which the issue was initially addressed, when the topics were so emotionally charged, these rights and protections probably would not have been granted. Decades later, we see how obvious these rights are. Extending these rights to those previously denied them did not threaten or undermine our society; to the contrary, we are stronger for it. The same is true for the matter before us today. The right of two people of the same sex to marry is not a matter for the populous to decide.

The Supreme Court of California has tested the state's laws and has come to a clear and reasoned judgment. Indeed the purpose of our judicial system is to protect the rights of those whose voice is not yet loud enough, to guarantee that they too have the same rights that are enjoyed by the majority. To this end, the Court acted exactly as they should have. Marriage is a right - a right available to all our citizens regardless of the gender of the parties.

Contrary to the inevitable claims that this judgment was made by "activist judges," they have not been activist or revolutionary. In fact, their ruling stems from a conservative letter-of-the-law interpretation of our constitution.
view thread
Sort By: Raves | Date «« First « Prev ... 22 23 24 25 ... Next » Last » Comments
  • raves +2   [-] Nic replied to StarrGazerr
    By when their opinions on it are based on religion it's not right. it says in our constitution that religion is supposed to stay out of politics, even with the voting citizens.
  • raves   -2 [-] StarrGazerr replied to Nic
    I agree, but not everyone who does not want gay marriage legalized feels that way for religious reasons.
  • raves +2 -1 [-] ibiza replied to StarrGazerr
    Bull$hit - they ALWAYS throw the "sin" and other fire and brimstone nonsense into it.
  • raves +1 -1 [-] StarrGazerr replied to ibiza
    Now that's uncalled for.

    As a very Good Book I read says: "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone."
  • raves +1   [-] Nic replied to StarrGazerr
    Well then where do they get their reasoning from? Same sex marriage doesn't hurt anyone!
  • raves     [-] Cindy replied to Nic
    yes - but laws are frequently made by a civil, justice seeking society, which inevitably invites churches into the arena. Unfortunatly that is all the people included to freely speak - even if some are wrong by the untruth, misinformation that flies around.
  • raves +2   [-] Christopher replied to StarrGazerr
    Hi StarrGazer. Actually, it's not accurate to say they "overturned" the will of the people. They found the law to be unconstitutional. And that is the bottom line responsibility of the Supreme Court. Their job is to weigh existing laws and cases against the constitution and established precedent. They simply did their jobs.
  • raves +1   [-] StarrGazerr replied to Christopher
    Well said. And you are completely correct. If it truly is the will of the People to structure society by this rule or that rule, then it is incumbent on them to amend the Constitution. If there is not sufficient support to pass a Constitutional Amendment, then it is not really "the will of the People".
  • raves +2   [-] by Nathalie

    Answered Yes

    In this case I think it was right, yes. The ones who voted against shouldn't be in that position. We need humanistic people for taking these important decisions.
  • raves +6   [-] by [Brii Monster]

    Answered Yes

    every court in the world has the right to over ride the vote.

    plus, this is a basic cardinal right, as laid out in the bill of rights act
    let me explain it in simple terms for you:
    the bill of rights act is an internationally recognised document which protects the rights of all people.
    section 19 "freedom from discrimination" states:
    everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, ethical or religious beleifs.

    and section 20 protects the rights of minority groups.

    this means, that by saying homosexuals arent allowed to marry is a breach of their fundamental freedoms and human rights.

    to openly discriminate against a minority group is not only immoral, but illegal too.

    the court can over turn and over ride any public vote in order to protect and sanctify the rights of a minority group, and it is pleasing to see this court has done the right thing.

    the court can not force homosexuals to love members of the opposite sex, and love is love. Love is not between a man and a woman, do not be so naive. Marriage is for 2 people who genuinely love each other, and for anyone to say that that is not right, and they dont have the right to marriage is discrimination.

    just for the record... i want to be a lawyer
    and that sounds so intellegent coming from a 17 year old at half past midnight...
  • raves +8 -1 [-] by Nowonmai

    Answered Yes

    The ban was unconstitutional. And 3 out of 4 people I have spoken to aren't against same sex marriages.
  • raves +10 -1 [-] Free Throw replied to Nowonmai
    They should have never placed the ban in the first place --just ignorant people trying to keep equality from becoming the law of the land.
  • raves   -1 [-] ..... replied to Nowonmai
    moderated...
  • raves     [-] Nowonmai replied to .....
    The Supreme court decided the ban, regardless of state law, was unconstitutional.
  • raves +3 -1 [-] by Dani

    Answered Yes

    The top comment says it better than I ever could
  • raves +6 -1 [-] by patchesm27

    Answered Yes

    Again if we had waited for the south to allow african americans to have their civil rights, they would still not be able to vote!
  • raves +3 -7 [-] larry replied to patchesm27
    Being a certain race is not a choice where you stick your privates is.
  • raves +2 -2 [-] patchesm27 replied to larry
    no actually it isn't!
  • raves +2 -2 [-] ibiza replied to larry
    I thought our privates were all stuck in Iraq? no?
  • raves +1   [-] Christopher replied to larry
    Larry! That's so hysterical! I was wondering if you were joking - now I know you must have been, because that statement and your "gay judges" statement are WAY to out there to be real!!! Good one Larry!
  • raves   -1 [-] Christopher replied to larry
    Why is it that the far-right always seems to think that God is soooo very interested in our genitals and what we do with them?

    Is THAT why earthquakes and floods go unattended to??? Because he's so focused on our "privates"? If THAT'S the case, then somebody's priorities need reordering!!!
  • raves +7 -1 [-] by :Guilty By Association:

    Answered Yes

  • raves +2 -14 [-] by Maria

    Answered No

    I think it's pretty clear that the majority of people in the country are against gay marriage. While I'm against gay marriage because it infringes on an institution that it millennia old I am in favor of civil unions. I don't understand the homosexual communities insistence on it being called a marriage. Do you just want the festival of marriage, the party and the staged event? Is that what you're fighting for?

    Well no one is stopping you from having your little identical party, reception and festivities that normally occur with marriage, they are simply saying "don't come around here trying to change what marriage has stood for thousands of years".

    Stop the pressure for gay marriage that is just making the majority of the country write you off as wackos and get what you really want, equal rights for your partner. Unless of course you're just pressing the marriage issue to piss a bunch of people off for no reason like you do with parading flamboyantly through the streets of cities.
  • raves +12 -1 [-] patchesm27 replied to Maria
    Once upon a time the majority of people were against mixed race marriages, it wasn't right then and what you are saying isn't right now. We want marriage because civil unions do NOT give us the same rights and protections as married couples! Marriage stands for love between 2 people nothing is different or being changed! I could give a fuck less if I am married in public or in front of a judge as long as I have that right, nor would I care if I had a party or "staged event"! YOU are a BIGOT!
  • raves +2 -9 [-] larry replied to patchesm27
    so your saying the majority is always wrong?

    being a pervert does not land you any rights
  • raves +3 -1 [-] patchesm27 replied to larry
    neither should being an ignorant bigot!
  • raves +1 -1 [-] Christopher replied to patchesm27
    uuuum, let's see, do I agree with Larry or parchesm27? um, Larry or parchesm27?

    let's seeeeeee...

    iiiiiiiit's PATCHESM27 by a mile!!!!
  • raves +2 -1 [-] Foo Master doesn't like Change replied to larry