SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 21, 2006
Calif. High Court To Rule On Gay Marriage
Will Consider Whether Ban Is Discriminatory & Therefore Unconstitutional
-
(AP / CBS)
-
Interactive Same-Sex Marriage Debate State-by-state coverage, opinions, history, photos and a look at the amendment process.
-
Interactive Gay In The U.S.A. State-by-state laws on gay issues, the marriage debate and photo essays.
The justices' move sets aside a lower court's decision in October that upheld state laws banning gays and lesbians from marrying one another. The outcome is not likely until late next year.
Massachusetts is the only state that authorizes same-sex marriage.
The justices are reviewing an October decision by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal, which ruled 2-1 that California marriage laws do not discriminate because gays and lesbians get most all the rights of marriage the state confers to heterosexual married couples.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom put the marriage debate in the national spotlight by allowing same-sex couples to get married at City Hall in 2004.
California's justices halted that wedding spree and voided the 4,037 marriage licenses while sidestepping the core constitutional question. They ruled the mayor did not have authority to make marriage law.
The justices, however, invited a challenge to whether banning same-sex marriage was discrimination - a challenge that reached the court Wednesday after it meandered through the trial and appellate courts.
Whether prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians is the biggest question surrounding marriage the California Supreme Court has faced since 1948. That year, seven different justices became the first court in the nation to declare laws banning mixed-race marriages unconstitutional discrimination.
The same-sex case was brought by about 20 same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco. Had the court not taken the case, the lower court's decision would have stood.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the city is "extremely gratified" the justices are reviewing the case.
"It's perhaps the major civil rights issue of our time," he said.
Randy Thomasson, spokesman for Voteyesmarriage.com, a group opposing same-sex marriage, said he was disappointed with the court's move.
"If the law ain't broke, don't fix it," he said. "This is bad news for marriage and the voters of California who already passed a state law reaffirming that marriage is a natural and beautiful institution between a man and a woman."
The court's recent record on gay and lesbian rights is mixed. In several landmark cases, the justices have concluded that gays and lesbians have the same rights as married couples to sue for wrongful death, to adopt children and to seek child support from former partners.
Last year, the court unanimously ruled, under a sweeping domestic partner law that took effect Jan. 1, 2005, businesses must offer spousal discounts to same-sex domestic partners if it offers those benefits to married couples.
"The Legislature has made it abundantly clear that an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses," wrote Justice Carlos Moreno, the court's only Democrat, appointed in 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis.
But in 1998, before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger-appointee Carol Corrigan and Moreno took the bench, the seven-member court unanimously sided with the Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which barred an openly gay man from being an assistant scoutmaster because of his sexual orientation. The justices held that California civil rights laws did not apply to the Scouts, and the Scouts had a First Amendment right to associate with whomever it chose.
The justices, however, were careful not to condone the Boy Scouts. "The resolution of this matter," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote, "does not turn on our personal views of the wisdom or morality of the actions or policies that are challenged in this case."
None of those cases, however, has focused squarely on whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry as barred by 1977 legislation and a 2000 voter-approved measure. In Proposition 22, 61 percent of voters declared marriage as a union between a man and woman.
The closest the court came to deciding the issue was in its 2004 ruling that Newsom overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples. In a 5-2 vote, the court also nullified the marriages.
Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a 1994 Republican appointed by Wilson, and Justice Joyce Kennard, a Republican appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989, wrote separately that the court should not nullify the marriages. A decision on that, they said, should await a final ruling on the marriages' constitutionality.
By David Kravets ©MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
More From Politics
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
Posted by PDTAN at 07:01 PM : Dec 21, 2006"
19 years dumb.
Another victim of 'no child left behind'. LOL
Every citizen also has responsibilities and obligations to the society in addition to his self-centered desires.
Being 19 and being overly self-centered alone is a bad start for one who will soon be mature in age.
"And the great issue now of homosexuality in your country, that shall be on the balance that Michael holds. Unless this balance is evened by removing this evil from your country and bringing in just laws to prevent the spread of homosexuality, you cannot be saved; your country cannot be saved. Because I repeat again, as I have repeated in the past: When a country has given itself over to immorality and all pleasures of the flesh, and abominations of the flesh, then that country will fall! If you do not believe Me, My children, I say: You will read your history books, and you will find out that there was a Sodom and Gomorrah. And what did We do to that abominable city, Sodom? We destroyed it! And what did We do to Gomorrah? We destroyed it! And We destroyed all who did not follow the plan for their redemption." Jesus, November 1, 1985
.
I am only 19 years old, and if this great country keeps abolishing our freedoms, we will become a socialist country soon enough. HELL IN A HAND BASKET!!!!!
Posted by mrshyatt at 03:04 PM : Dec 21, 2006"
Right, that is the reason alert citizens want those engaging in societally worthless behaviors out of the general population: Those citizens are also engaging in societally worthless behaviors themselves and hate it in themselves.
By your weak mind and mentally mixed up thinking, societies should do away with police and judges because they are deviants who just want to remove other deviants from the general population.
My turn.
Have you ever been told that any hate you experience in cyberspace is YOUR OWN HATE?
Think on these things, not that your mind is that capable.
And marriage HAS NEVER BEEN practiced nor understood to be anything but the ritualizing of the male-female union.
On the basis of precedent alone, this f@ggot *** belongs in the toilet, along with the beastly behavior of those sick and mentally mixed up individuals who are too lost and confused about mating -- male-female union!
No society that is intent on its health and survival will entertain/condone/promote the societally worthless behaviors of mentally mixed individuals who engage in the deviance of homosexuality.
Better dead than gay!
Unfortunately, people don't look to history, otherwise they wouldn't act so foolish. African Americans wre first slaves and then discriminated against even after they were supposedly set free. Then you had the immigrant bigotry of the late 19th and early 20th century. Then women were second class citizens until the 20's when they got to vote. Then it became "in vogue" to hate on the blacks again. Then the Japanese internments of WWII. Then back to the "go-to" people of the haters, the black people again. Now, it's *** and, once again, the immigrants who are the boogeymen.
We look back at those times and cringe in embarrassment (well, at least most of us do). ANd you are right, 100 years from now, the treatment of *** will be an embarrassment. But some people never learn from history. It's the same prejudices all over gain, year after year, generation afte generation. Same bigotry and hatred, different group. And they never learn. And I'm sure in 40 years or so, a new group will top the despised list. It seems some people are never happy unless there is at least one group of people they can look down on.
OK, here's the difference. Incest, rape, pedophilia and beastiality are all illegal. Being g@y is not. Preventing people from doing something that is normally legal just because you don't want them doing it is discrimination and is not OK. You are attempting to use a secondary contextual meaning of the word discrimination to cloud the issue.
But the bigots try to link being g@y with illegal criminal acts like rape and incest. It's like the arguments people have used against using the Koran to swear an oath like that one guy from Congress recently, saying that if we allow that, then why not "Mein Kampf". That somehow, Islam and the Koran are siilar to Mein Kampf when they clearly are not.
If this type of reasoning is your argument, you are on weak ground. But then again, I don't care what gay people do one way or the other. My life isn't so pathetic that I have to make myself feel better about myself by trying to deprive people of some joy - or misery depending on your view of marriage - in their lives.
When OSAMA BEEN-FORGOTTEN was planning attack against USA,we were wasting our times in figuring out whether CLINTON had sexual relationship with MONICA LEWINSKY or not.When Bush lied about Iraq WMDs,we were more concerned about BRITNEY SPEARS no longer a VIRGIN.
I wonder why people in CIVILIZED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES look down on us being UNCIVILIZED,NARROW MINDED,BACKWARD COWBOYS.
This country has real problems and gay marriage is not one of them. This is a devisive issue thrown out there by Republican strategists who know that a country devided is easier to control and manipulate.
While American's have been distracted by this, our country is being robbed, our children are being killed, and our freedoms eliminated.
I'm not gay. But I am secure enough in my own sexuality not to be threatend by gay marriage or anything else gay. As far as religion goes, if God doesn't like homosexuality then he should stop making homosexuals. Until then we'll just have to leave it up to him and ..... GET OVER IT!!!!!
Unfortunately, "discrimination" brings up ideas of racial injustice, over a person's skin color, or ethnic heritage; and so is automatically thrown out. But some discrimination is right. We discriminate between marriage and shacking; between marriage and incest; between marriage and rape; between marriag and pedophilia; between marriage and beastiallity; but we don't have a problem with these discriminations. No, we should not discriminate against *******uals, but there should be no problem discriminating between marriage and the practice of ******uality.
To discriminate means to make a difference between. Well there is a difference, and it should stand.
- by jswilliams451 December 21, 2006 9:31 AM EST
- "The justices, however, invited a challenge to whether banning same-*** marriage was discrimination"
- Reply to this comment
See all 20 CommentsOf course a ban on same-*** marriage is discrimination.
That's a no-brainer.
Now all we have to do is decide whether discrimination against the *** is OK.
I think we've pretty much already decided that for the most part. And, at least for now, we've decided it IS ok.
Its just that some parts of the nation are resisting.
Makes for interesting reads.