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."

[striker177]

When we can learn to grant all adult human beings the same amount of compassion....then we will begin to experience heaven on Earth. Bravo to the California Judges!
To anyone who possibly thinks this harms the moral fabric of America...It doesn''t. It will only strengthen it by providing a legal bond, sense of pride and integrity, and strength to over 100,000 loving, committed partnerships in America. It pains me to see people still pulling the polygamy, children and animal comments out...for these people ... well you may want to look at your own heart and find the pain that causes you to think in such a deranged and hateful manner. Heal yourself and don''t judge others for how they love...for love is the only thing that saves...if you doubt this statement ask Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, The Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Krishna or anyone else who understands and practices unconditional love.
My hope is that we can all learn to grow and make constructive unifying changes in this lifetime so that we can live happy healthy lives together, and leave a vital planet for our children (even those who have LGBT parents).

[darnedsocks]

THIS IS SO GROSS IT MAKES MY STOMACH CHURN! THESE PEOPLE NEED SERIOUS MENTAL THERAPY!

[blackyowe]

Perhaps we should make it so you can have many wives and many husbands and you can marry your goat as well. The sky is the limit how about we make it so we can marry dead people. Maybe we should lower the age so 3 year olds can chose a mate early and avoid the rush.

[charlieot]

noseonurface...This does NOT open the door for children and animals...
Neither can provide legal consent. Legal consent is founded in many years of precedent (including both sexual and non-sexual matters). Courts are loathe to make rulings which overturn precedent, particularly precedents which would have the potential to affect many different legal areas (not just sexual).

Bsically, your argument is a tempest in a teapot...
the possibility that courts would remove consent barriers is so remote as to be an impossibility.

[dmhphils]

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.

Therefore sxxual orientation is the basis of this decision, and that leaves the door wide open to whatever orientation you prefer, from Shetland ponies to children. It won''t be long now.

[dmhphils]

It won''t be long now.

[blackyowe]

I think that it is all to make G*A*Y* S fee legitimate for the most part. I say get therapy for the feelings of insecurity folks and leave marriage for heterosexuals. What we need now are strong laws so that inheritance and medical benefits can be extended to who ever one chooses to be the next in kin. Homosexuals and Lesbians deserve to be treated with respect but should leave marriage be. Marriage is meant for life and meant to be for a man and a women. Tinker with something else you social architects and keep your hands off matrimony.

[michellem99-2009]

The constution was writ by men amd for men in 1776. Ladies and people of colour had no rights in that period and later we had the same rights to vote,and in 1964 blacks got their civil rights as a people but were the ones that built this nation but slave labour. Whitey pushed them and indians about. Men did not want ladies in the work force or get a proper education. My rights in the 1950s thru 70s. got a water down ed. I have kin that can''t read and write. They were older handicapped. I was barred for the same reason. Now ye want to grant same gendar marriage. It AINT marriage..I was not raised in the church..If they want to live together as room mates fine..I will vote against it and have.

[blackyowe]

Once more the east and west coasts are way out of touch with the mainstream and as usual trying to make everyone else in the majoriety of states conform to their warped world view. Let all the same *** couples move to Mass and California and get married if that is their wish and leave the rest of us be.

[blackyowe]

You know not everyone who beleives in God is a waco and there is middle ground? I am hardly a hellfire and damnation sort but it''s pretty obvious American morality is on the skids.

[cbsguest6]

I stand corrected from an earlier post, their is an estimated 3% homosexual population in society.

[christian735]

Religionists are tribal primitives and dangerous. Get them out of government and keep them out!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jmcgilvray at 12:19 PM : May 17, 2008


Sure...and then replace them with an atheist right? Like Stalin...who still holds the record for the most murders of innocent people ever in the history of any government. Stalin, the atheist.

You can''t remove our Christian foundation just yet jmcgilvray. You are still a tiny minority and the rest of us who believe in absolute morals and principles will continue to utilize our freedom of speech and choice and expression to combat you in the political arena with all of our might!

You cannot turn this Sovereign nation, the United States of America, into a total secular state! Aint happenin'' pal!!

[christian735]

We need more gay and lesbian attitudes today and less religion! Especially...North American Christian!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jkhagemann at 09:03 PM : May 17, 2008

Spoken like a true rebellious God hater, lost in a world engulfed with sin.

So sad.

[christian735]

The push towards a Sodomized America continues from the secular humanists in our country. God can''t be pleased.

[jkhagemann]

Is Incest Next?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/paper

s.cfm?abstract_id=442520


Blackboy... incest only happens in christian families.

[jkhagemann]

Is Incest Next?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/paper
s.cfm?abstract_id=442520


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by BlackYowe at 09:29 PM : May 17, 2008


Blackboy... incest only happens in Christioan families.

[blackyowe]

Is Incest Next?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=442520

[blackyowe]

I am waiting for the obvious next thing. People fighting to repeal incest laws so brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters can wed. It''s comeing you just watch. We live in a idiotic time.

[blackyowe]

They can marry just like anyone else and do. There are thousands of married homosexuals some whose wives know and some who do not. LOL

[stupidrules3]

Gay people should be able to get married and be miserable just like anybody else. They should be able to have half of their assets given to someone who cleaned their house and occasionally put out. They should be able to gripe about how insensitive their husband is too. The attorneys are licking their chops at all the potential clients this will produce.