Court watch: California gay marriage ruling…Upholds SF licensing scheme, 4-3 decision in a favor of a “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship”
A California Supreme Court decision on San Francisco’s gay marriage licenses is expected within the hour.
Gay marriage supporters are prepared to hold a “celebration of love.” Social conservatives are prepared to go to the ballot box:
More than four years after San Francisco defied state marriage laws by allowing nearly 4,000 same-sex couples to wed at City Hall, the state Supreme Court is set to decide today whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California.
But the decision, due at 10 a.m., may not be the last word. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, a tally that is due by mid-June, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.
Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment.
The marriage case is the most prominent and politically explosive dispute to come before the court in decades. The justices have largely managed to stay out of the public spotlight since 1986, when voters removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two liberal colleagues who had joined her in overturning nearly all death sentences to come before the court.
The current court, with a 6-1 majority of Republican appointees, has a centrist record on social issues and has ruled in favor of gay-rights advocates in a number of cases, including three decisions in 2005 requiring equal treatment for same-sex parents in disputes over child support and custody. The justices seemed sharply divided at their hearing in the marriage case March 4.
Win or lose, supporters of same-sex marriage have scheduled a “celebration of love and family” at the San Francisco LGBT Center, 1800 Market St., at 5 p.m. today, with similar observances planned in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo and Palm Springs.
The political consequences, summed up:
“If California issues a decision legalizing same-sex marriage, it will reinvigorate the fight for same-sex marriage” nationally, said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. “But if they affirm that marriage is for a man and a woman, then what has happened is that Massachusetts is leading a one-state parade.”
***
Update: Here’s the ruling.
To the ballot box we go.
More from SFGate:
Gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California, the state Supreme Court said today in a historic ruling that could be repudiated by the voters in November.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when it takes effect in 30 days.
But it could be overturned in November, when Californians are likely to vote on a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures on initiative petitions, and officials are working to determine if at least 694,354 of them are valid.
If the measure qualifies for the ballot and voters approve it, it will supersede today’s ruling. The initiative does not say whether it would apply retroactively to annul marriages performed before November, an omission that would wind up before the courts.
The legal case dates back to February 2004, when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city clerk to start issuing marriage licenses to couples regardless of their gender, saying he doubted the constitutionality of the state marriage law.
The state’s high court ordered a halt a month later, after nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings had been performed at San Francisco City Hall. The court annulled the marriages in August 2004, ruling that Newsom lacked authority to defy the state law. But it did not rule on the validity of the law itself and said it would await proceedings in lower courts.
Some of the couples immediately sued in Superior Court and were joined by the city of San Francisco, which said it had a stake in ensuring equality for its residents. The case that ultimately reached the state Supreme Court consolidated four suits, one by the city and three by 23 same-sex couples in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Whole Bird
- California Supreme Court Rules Ban On Gay Marriage Is Unconsitutional | Popehat
- Perverts in perverted California MUST be allowed to marry | The TIW Blog
- California aprobó el matrimonio gay!! « El Hogar de Victoria
- California State Supreme Court Says Same Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right | THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
- Gay Marriage in California « Axis of Right
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
- Church and State
- This Goes to 11
- Obama or Clinton, the Pedulum Moves Left: « Riggword Weblog
- Michelle Malkin » Worst. Republican. Senator. Ever.
- California Gay Marriage Ruling « Truthseeker
- Michelle Malkin » Public school politicking and Proposition 8
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Uncategorized
Little Miss Attila
» Okay, Ladies.
Belmont Club
» Both sides nowRiehl World View
» Whoa! Palin BEAT Obama In Ratings ScorePower Line
» 40 Million?!JustOneMinute
» Now The Surge Is Succeeding?Little Miss Attila
» Well, You Know: G.W. Bush Didn't Vet His VP, Either.TigerHawk
» "We lost their trust"Redstate
» The Palin And McCain SpeechesGateway Pundit
» America First-- John McCain Makes His Case
“On May 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm, undrseige247 said:
mistressjustice said:
I’m against organized religion altogether”
“On May 15th, 2008 at 10:52 pm, undrseige247 said:
Damn you’re a sad person.”
I wouldn’t worry, AbMind - MsJustice doesn’t seem the type of person to be much moved by non-sensical one-line shots. To equate someone not being impressed with meaningless rituals and hyper-mechanical roteness with being “unhappy” is just plain silly. Come to think of it, that criteria would make Jesus a sufferer of “depression”!
#537 On May 16th, 2008 at 5:04 am, purplepeep said:
“who says making babies shouldn’t be fun?”
I didn’t. Why shouldn’t loving one another have it’s physical joy too?
Why should marital (sexual) intercourse be limited to baby making? When fertility is no longer possible, does the couple cease having marital relations?
Your post clearly says that the exclusivity of marriage to “one man to one woman” (you forgot, “for one lifetime”) is primarily because it takes the joining of one sperm to one egg to produce a child, and the “natural” way to join sperm to egg is by a man penetrating his wife’s vagina with his penis, engaging in intercourse, launching the sperm to the egg….
That’s your statement regarding marriage–that it is entirely based on “nature” as described above.
I’ve been to hundreds of church weddings in a variety of faiths, though mostly Christian (I was a wedding soloist back in the day). Nowhere in the traditional vows, or even modern vows, did the couple vow to have children. It is NOT a condition of marriage. Legal marriage in the US does not require the birth of a child before giving the union legitimacy. Nor does legal marriage require a fertility test of the man and woman prior to granting the license (infertile people are not prohibited from marrying). Seems to me, talk of children and child birth is not at all relevant, as most religious vows make no mention of reproduction or children, nor do the legal requirements in the US require it.
Here’s what REALLY bothers ME about our marriage laws. A woman can have aborted once, twice, perhaps even three times. Meaning, she’s murdered one, two or perhaps even three of her very own children. And this does not bar her from marrying. If marriage *IS* fundamentally about children, as you & so many others contend, then why are these child murderers not barred from marriage?
How does that make sense? How is it that a child murderer can marry so long as she marries a man, but I can’t marry a woman and live privately with her, minding our own business, working hard, being responsible.
The problem in this country is that it’s structured along lines of entitlement. Everybody is entitled to one thing or another… tax breaks, good jobs, education, safe cars, cheap gas, health care…
It’s all about “what can you (government) do for me and mine.” Whatever happened to “What can *I* do for me and mine?”
We’ve lost sight of lines of responsibility. Why can’t we enable responsibility and reward it, in whatever form it comes. If I want to claim Courtney and our daughter as my “wards,” and provide for them, so that no one else has to (least of all the government), then what sense does it make that the laws should make it HARDER for me to fulfill my responsibilities?
Hey Rusty
Let me guess, you googled gay rights + Bible quotes and found the wikipedia article on it.
Everyone, give this man a round of applause.
You’ve now achieved you-tube comment level distinction on this blog.
So, how about actually reading the Bible, especially the New Testament, which is what applies to Christians.
As for gay rights, you know, even if I weren’t religious, I still couldn’t support them. The secular arguments make too much sense.
Trop said:
How exactly does the law make anything harder? What about people who just want to remain single and raise children? Why are you leaving them out? By your standard, THEY should also be able to ‘marry’ - themselves.
In reality, nothing is harder for you at all because you can marry someone of the opposite gender as easily and as legally as anyone else; as nature intended marriage to be; as having two genders seems to ~imply~.
This is absurd . . . what constitution are they reading from; it certainly isn’t the Constitution of the United States of America or any that have been derived from that document. Every aspect of life in this country has become mindlessly perverted.