Gay Marriage Opponents Vow To Fight Ruling

Group Wants Legalized Same-Sex Marriage In Calif. Postponed Until Nov. So Voters Can Weigh In

(CBS/AP)  Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation's most populous state.

A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.

If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. "The remedy is a constitutional amendment."

With a stroke of a pen Thursday, the Republican-dominated court swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation.

The 4-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, 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," George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Gay marriage opponents, meanwhile, derided the ruling as an example of judicial overreaching in which the opinions of a few justices trumped the will of Californians.

The last time the state's voters were asked to express their views on same-sex 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's ruling Thursday struck down both statutes.

John Lewis and Stewart Gaffney, who were among the couples that sued to overturn laws against same-sex marriage, told CBS' The Early Show that they were "enormously happy" by the ruling.

"We've been a loving, committed couple now for 21 years. And it's just a tremendous feeling to know that we are no longer excluded. And that our loving, committed relationship is going to be given the highest dignity and respect under the law," Lewis said.

What about dealing with opponents out there trying to get this on the ballot in November to ban same-sex marriages?

"Well, you know, no one should have to put their love before the voters. But if this is on the ballot in November, we will continue telling our story and telling people that this court decision is really about love, fundamentally," Gaffney told The Early Show. "California has now made a great statement that all love deserves to be treated equally. And we're going to tell that story all the way until November. And we are very hopeful."

Still, backers of a proposed November ballot measure that would allow Californians to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage said the court's decision would ultimately help their cause.

"(The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups helping to underwrite the gay marriage ban campaign. "I do think it will activate and energize Californians. I'm more confident than ever that we will be able to pass this amendment come November."

To date, 26 states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

In the past few years, courts in New York, Maryland and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage, and New Jersey's highest court gave the state lawmakers the option of establishing civil unions as an alternative.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. More than 9,500 same-sex couples in that state have wed. The California ruling is considered monumental because of the state's population - 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million - and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told a roaring crowd at City Hall after the ruling was issued. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

The case was set in motion in 2004 when Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four thousand wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office argued to uphold the ban, said Brown would "work with the governor and other state agencies to implement the ruling."

The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with the decision of this court."

By Thursday afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. The county clerk's office in Los Angeles issued a statement saying it was awaiting legal analysis of the ruling and a timeline for implementation.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors of the anti-gay marriage ballot measure gathered enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot.

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

[bbirdsr71]

A sad day in California, the begging of the decay of America.

[carlylaine]

It was voted on by the people of California for a ban and a justice says "''F'' YOU CITIZENS." There is a reason for the ban...that''s what the people want. How dare you and no wonder we hate the government.

[jonsid2]

Maybe some of you anti same-*** marriage readers could fill me in. What is it about same *** marriage that bothers you? How is it hurting you? How will it hurt society? Is this like the antiquated laws against sodomy, where even two married people couldn''t do it because some people didn''t like to know it was happening?

[actiscenei]

I find it amazing that not ONE person who advocates this ban can explain why Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Yes, that Massachusetts -- the one that allows same-*** marriages.

These theories on how it will ruin marriage for everyone else have absolutely NO basis in truth. If they do, exactly whose male-female marriage was delegitimized and ruined by allowing gay weddings?

These point are ALWAYS ignored by the fear-mongerers. It seems like they have nothing to go on, except trying to make themselves feel better by debasing others. Very sad, and very scary.

[l8c6]

First of all, religion does marriage. The government should acknowledge civil unions. The opponents are the same right wing republican evangelical and "conservative with everyone but themselves" hypocrites. These are same groups that rallied with Ronald Reagan against "big government". It''s clear they aren''t against big government. They want to be the government and dictate to the people with absolute rule absolutely. They''d rather have gay men live in faux marriages and toe tap in bathroom stalls than to build healthier intimate relationships. Religious kooks are the per*verts.

These are the issues and truncated infobytes the right wing corporate media will bring to the public during this election year. California is a blue state with one big red eye.

[l8c6]

Posted by rafterman1

Why do you think it''s the right of "the people of California" to become a mob that has poor boundaries intruding on people and their personal relationships? If the people of Alabama had had it their way, black people would have been kept in cages used to serve the republican minded conservative with everyone but themselves cotton plantation owners.

[displeased]

What kind of low life loser do you have to be (e.g., the Alliance Defense Fund) to think you have the right to stick your nose in someone else''''s business?
Posted by rafterman1

It''s the fundamental religious types. They''re always preaching fear of someone taking over the world. Fear the Muslims! Fear the ***! Fear the Atheist! Fear the penguins! And so on...

[l8c6]

CarlyLaine

The people have voted to have your head shaved then you tarred and feathered. People like you are the medieval remnants of the dark ages consisting of toothless ignorant tangled haired trash so miserable with themselves that watching executions roused jeers and cheers.

[displeased]

That''s strange, we can''t say G.A.Y.S on this forum. What a bunch of pansies.

[mudrose-2009]

Part I

Judicial activism returned with a vengeance in one of the most egregious rulings in American jurisprudence. It took just four activist judges to overturn the historical definition of marriage, not to mention the vote of more than four and a half million Californians, as the state supreme court issued a much-anticipated ruling on the question of same-*** "marriage." By a 4-3 margin, the justices struck down a law, adopted by 61 percent of voters in 2000, which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. By imposing same-*** "marriage" on voters, the California Supreme Court knowingly usurped the right of the people to effect change in public policy. This outcome is even more troubling than Massachusetts'', in that California voters had already won the right to put a marriage protection amendment on the ballot in November. If the court cared at all about the democratic process, it would have stayed its decision until the people''s voice was heard on the November amendment. Instead, these justices trampled on the legislature and created same-*** marriage by judicial fiat.

[mudrose-2009]

Part II

This is nothing more than a judicial shotgun wedding that forces a redefinition of marriage on the people of California and potentially the rest of the nation. We trust that the voters of California will act in November to correct this exercise in judicial activism and to permanently enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution. Clearly, this decision highlights the need for a federal amendment defining marriage in the U.S. Constitution. Only then will this campaign to shatter the family''s foundation be ended once and for all.

So much for Bush and the Righties trashing the Constitution. The lefties do it all the time and like abortion they are going to see this issue rage for years.

[jonsid2]

It''''s the fundamental religious types. They''''re always preaching fear of someone taking over the world. Fear the Muslims! Fear the ***! Fear the Atheist! Fear the penguins! And so on...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Displeased at 08:41 AM : May 16, 2008

Maybe Russia had the right idea - ban Christianity and other religions because they distort people''s thinking and cause them to act out of fear rather than reason. What can we do to help these people?

[displeased]

Only then will this campaign to shatter the family''''s foundation be ended once and for all.
Posted by mudrose

Hey mudrose, you can still have a family. Just ignore what your neighbors do in the bedroom, kind of like what you should be doing anyway.

[alexma50085]

There are so many bigger issues that these anti-g ay protesters could be spending there time on, like bringing our troops home from Iraq and our down-spiraling economy. G ay marriage has never hurt a hetero marriage. With a 50% divorce rate in the U.S., religion has no place to speak on the sanctity of marriage.

[missingamerica]

I don''t understand those who oppose gay marriage. What the hell business is it of their what other people do? Do they think that other people should be able to legislate the terms of their marriages?

If so, I have a hell of an idea. When two people want to get divorced, they flip a coin. The loser is executed on the spot, and the winner gets the kids, the assets, etc. Case closed and no messy divorce.

[afmca]

One must remember that the founding fathers made the courts an EQUAL partner along with the executive and congressional branches of government. Our founders were smart enough to know that the bigotry of those in power needed to be held in check by an independent branch. Laws defining marriage as being between a man and woman are blatently religiously inspired and have no basis to be legal in a secular, democratic society. Those that rail against it have shown no justification against inclusions of ***; just as their bigoted counter-parts in history could not justify the ban of marriage between races. This is a Bush/Cheney/Rove Repub issue that rallies their ignorant masses, allows the evangelists to fill their coffers with money, and allows those ever so pious religious wackos to once again spout out concerning their moral superiority even while they cheat on their spouse, are signing their divorce papers, or toe tap in a bathroom stall.

[macusweil]

Don''t these right wingers have ANYTHING better to do with their time? How about cleaning up the Republican party?? Get over it.. most Americans favor same *** marriage!!

[fornicario]

To be honest, I believe that all people should have the right to be married, whatever their orientation is. To hold on to the backwards view that marriage is only for ''normal'' people while *** pay taxes, and even fight and die for the same people who deny them the right to marry.

[mudrose-2009]

Posted by afmca

There are three branches of government that have distinct and separate functions. The President defends the office of the Presidency and the Country; the Congress does the people''s business by legislating the laws and the courts uphold the Constitution, the rule of law. Separate and distinct functions. If courts think that they should legislate then all judges should be elected not seated by Congress. This is simple trashing of the constitution. This is another Roe v. Wade dumbbell, not a Bush/Cheney issue. The courts are what create wedge issues like Abortion and now Gay Marriage because they just can''t keep from legislating from the bench.

[grumpas]

Clearly, this decision highlights the need for a federal amendment defining marriage in the U.S. Constitution.

posted by mudrose

One thing about conservative Republican''s they can always be counted on to worry about the petty issues and ignore the important ones like a economy in the sewer! Gay marriage is not an important issue it only bothers religious nuts who don''t have anything better to do with the time than worry about what their neighbors are doing in bed! I will be so glad when half this nation grows up and learns to ''Live and Let Live''!

[missingamerica]

The courts are what create wedge issues like Abortion and now Gay Marriage because they just can''''t keep from legislating from the bench.

Posted by mudrose at 08:57 AM : May 16, 2008

lolll...now that is funny. I don''t seem to remember you pitching a *** when the Supreme Court gave our nation to Bush...

[mudrose-2009]

Don''''t these right wingers have ANYTHING better to do with their time? How about cleaning up the Republican party?? Get over it.. most Americans favor same *** marriage!!

Posted by macusweil

You change agent is calling you. He got a nice fat slap in the face yesterday. We all know your Savior is an appeaser. He''s the new Neville Chamberlain with attitude. Haven''t you people got anything better to do then b/itch when people resent who have opposing points of view. And most people do not approve of ss marriage. They are willing to extend to civil unions. Wake up you are very ill informed.

[bevc4]

I have no idea why this disturbs people so much. What business is it of yours what two consenting adults do?? Two loving adults want to get married...congratulations!!

[mudrose-2009]

Try using that same argument when your President''''s Supreme Court tosses the constitution out the window in favor of GOP political policy. Nobody is saying you HAVE to be gay, mudhole. Me thinks thou doest protest too much. Getting dark in that closet, is it?
Posted by nokoolaid

Oh and what policy is that? I protest because I resent any court usurping the right of the people. So stick your on wong in your own ear and get out of the closet yourself and stop projecting your behavior onto me.

[missingamerica]

We all know your Savior is an appeaser.

Posted by mudrose at 08:59 AM : May 16, 2008

Yup, Jesus was an appeaser. He was all about turning the other cheek...

lolll...the religious right neocon types kill me. Any argument to suppress the rights of others, even when it screams "I''m a hypocritical liar!".

[mudrose-2009]

One thing about conservative Republican''''s they can always be counted on to worry about the petty issues and ignore the important ones like a economy in the sewer! Gay marriage is not an important issue it only bothers religious nuts who don''''t have anything better to do with the time than worry about what their neighbors are doing in bed! I will be so glad when half this nation grows up and learns to ''''Live and Let Live''''!
Posted by grumpas

Yeah, check out g/ay marriage al la Canada. They''re sure letting everyone live and let live. Dolt.

[quetzalcrist]

2 Consenting adults.
Government has no business telling us what
the deffinition of love is.

[mudrose-2009]

Yup, Jesus was an appeaser. He was all about turning the other cheek...

lolll...the religious right neocon types kill me. Any argument to suppress the rights of others, even when it screams "I''''m a hypocritical liar!".
Posted by ibsteve2u

He was a righteous man. He did not believe in abortion and certainly would not approve of men lying down with men. And I believe in the 10 commandments it does say Honor Thy FATHER and Thy MOTHER. Not honor they mothers and some sperm bank seeeman or honor they fathers and some surrogates eggs.

[mudrose-2009]

2 Consenting adults.
Government has no business telling us what
the deffinition of love is.
Posted by QuetzalCrist

Government has no business telling anyone what love is and judges have no business telling the people what marriage is. Semper WIFI ********.

[missingamerica]

Keep trying, mudrose...someday you''ll either grow up and see the light, or you''ll wake up and realize that you really aren''t about American ideals - you''re all about limiting individual freedom.

[usbrit-2009]

The fact that any Proposition passed by CA voters usually ends up defeated or in the courts should be enough for anyone to realise the proposition system does not work. They are usually the work of special interest groups who use legalese and other divisive language to hide the truth behind their often unconstitutional plans. In this case the prop was from right wing religious nuts who just want the world to act the way that they believe and sod off to everyone else. Maybe g@ys should declare their lifestyle a religion, then they would be free to practice whatever they want without any interference from any of these holier than thou a$$holes.

[trenticus-2009]

Live and let live! just because two consenting adults do what they want and live their life as they wish is NONE OF MY business! Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families, is probably the biggest "Pole-Smoker" there is. Let eat cake!then visit: hotdealoutlet.com!

[quetzalcrist]

mudrose...
if you believe in the 10 commandments, why is it not ok to kill one man to onother man, but its ok to kill onother man in Gods name?
whats all that about,
doesnt this contradiction bother you?

[mudrose-2009]

lolll...now that is funny. I don''''t seem to remember you pitching a *** when the Supreme Court gave our nation to Bush...
Posted by ibsteve2u

Left leaning court, stupid. And even they couldn''t pull off a scam by electing Al Bore.

[acolton1]

Randy Thomasson thanks for being such a hate monster. I have been with my partner for 9+years and we deserve the same tax breaks that a MAN AND A WOMAN get. Randy Thomasson your an IDIOT and a hater.

[macusweil]

"If courts think that they should legislate then all judges should be elected not seated by Congress. "

Dude! Ever heard of "Separation of Church" and state?

If you want to restrict same-*** marriage go to a church that believes in doing it that way. The whole purpose of state recognition of marriage is to offer all couples basic rights like hospital visitation and inheritance.

The courageous judges in CA are just upholding the law not writing it. Don''t give me that stupid "judges should not legislate" argument just because you don''t like the ruling. Same was true of a laws prohibiting interracial marriage, its discrimination plan and simple.

[mudrose-2009]

mudrose...
if you believe in the 10 commandments, why is it not ok to kill one man to onother man, but its ok to kill onother man in Gods name?
whats all that about,
doesnt this contradiction bother you?
Posted by QuetzalCrist

You are obviously a child of the school of Darwinism. You are a moral relativist and your will rot in your own idiocy.

[irliberal]

WOOHOO! Go California!! Two for civil rights, 48 to go!!! RAH RAH RAH RAH!

[quetzalcrist]

mudrose

Semper WIFI keyboard warrior.
i see youre still stinging from my clever use of words,
youre still using it...

[bks59]

it is the nore than 1100 ''federal'' rights granted a married couple (see below), state laws add to this number, that is why there is a question of equality.

According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are over a thousand federal laws that treat married people differently from single people. It should be noted that these rights and responsibilities apply only to male-female married couples, as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage as between a man and a woman and thus bars Same-*** couples from receiving any federal recognition of same *** marriage or conveyance of marriage benefits to same *** couples through federal marriage law.

Prior to the enactment of DOMA, the General Accounting Office (as the GAO was then called) identified 1,049 [1] federal statutory provisions in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor. An update was published in 2004 by the GAO covering the period between September 21, 1996 (when DOMA was signed into law) and December 31, 2003. The update identified 120 new statutory provisions involving marital status, and 31 statutory provisions involving marital status repealed or amended in such a way as to eliminate marital status as a factor. This yields a total of 1,138 [2] provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.

[mudrose-2009]

The courageous judges in CA are just upholding the law not writing it. Don''''t give me that stupid "judges should not legislate" argument just because you don''''t like the ruling. Same was true of a laws prohibiting interracial marriage, its discrimination plan and simple.
Posted by macusweil

What law was that? Interracial marriage was discrimination plan and simple. It did not destroy the the definition of marriage.

[acolton1]

MUDROSE, MUDROSE, MUDROSE why are you not cut and paste today thats all you do all day anyway. You are such an uninformed IDIOT. Maybe you sould be gaye then maybe you could get a date because chicks dont like you thats easy to see by your stupidity on the internet and your cut and paste life style. Your an IDIOT MUDROSE.

[mudrose-2009]

WOOHOO! Go California!! Two for civil rights, 48 to go!!! RAH RAH RAH RAH!


Posted by IRLiberal

There will be an amendment on the November ballot to strike down the Court''s decision. Rah, Rah, Rah!

[mudrose-2009]

mudrose

Semper WIFI keyboard warrior.
i see youre still stinging from my clever use of words,
youre still using it...

Posted by QuetzalCrist

No just reminding you that your commentaries are meaningless.

[singingrick]

If your not gay, do what I do, don''t marry someone of the same gender and keep your nose out of other peoples bedrooms. If you are gay, more power to you. The constitution guarantees that you should be treated like any other citizen.

[acolton1]

MUDROSE, MUDROSE, MUDROSE just when was the last time you had a date with a female. hahahahahahahahahahaha

At the 8th grade Sadie Hawkins dance and she asked you because your such a Cut and Paste kind of looser.

[quetzalcrist]

mudrose .. ok muddy ole gal.
how are you, 1 person going to change anything, honestly?
shooting words at people from a keyboard will not do anything.
at the end of the day, youll still be short , fat, ugly and still selling puppies...

[mudrose-2009]

Posted by bks59

Yup, it''s called SHOW ME THE MONEY! Well at least somebody had the brains to figure it out. More of the people''s money to support more wacked out lifestyles and who pays the price. The Children. Those unforeseen consequences of 4 ffks in black robes.

[acolton1]

Posted by QuetzalCrist at 09:11 AM : May 16, 2008

QUETZALCRIST: Let MUDROSE have it he is a major IDIOT.

[usbrit-2009]

mudrose - Jesus wouldn''t have known what abortion is since the medical procedure had not been invented then. Jesus was also the first liberal, as anyone can tell from his teachings (note bleesed are the meek and blessed are the poor - not blessed are the powerful and the rich), so he would have been quite OK with anyone''s loving relationship. (Need I mention that in this day and age, twelve guys going out to dinner with each other would raise some eyebrows). Is it just the fact that the Great Book of Stories has a couple of sentences about man laying with man that you guys are so against g@y marriage or is it that you just don''t like the idea?