Calif. High Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

But 18,000 Existing Same-Sex Marriages Are Allowed To Stand

(CBS/AP)  California's Supreme Court upheld the state's gay-marriage ban Tuesday but said the 18,000 same-sex weddings that took place before the prohibition passed are still valid - a ruling decried by gay-rights activists as a hollow victory.

Demonstrators outside the court booed, wept and yelled, "Shame on you!" Some gay activists blocked a busy intersection in San Francisco in protest and others are already preparing for another battle at the polls, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone. The issue could be before California voters again as early as next year.

In a 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George, the court rejected arguments that the ban approved by the voters last fall was such a fundamental change in the California Constitution that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

As for the thousands of couples who tied the knot last year in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California, the court said it is well-established principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to be, and that was not the case with Proposition 8.

Moreover, the court said it would be too disruptive to apply Proposition 8 retroactively and dissolve all gay marriages.

Doing that would have the effect of "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by this state's highest court," the ruling said.

While gay rights advocates accused the court of failing to protect a minority group from the will of the majority, the justices said that the state's governing framework gives voters almost unfettered ability to change the California Constitution.

The decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse, holding signs and waving rainbow flags. Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.

"We're relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to marry those they love," said Amber Weiss, 32, who was in the crowd at City Hall, near the courthouse, with her partner, Sharon Papo. They were married on the first day gay marriage was legal last year, June 17.

"I feel very uncomfortable being in a special class of citizens," Papo said.

Jeanne Rizzo, 62, who was one of the plaintiffs along with her wife, Pali Cooper, said: "It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over. I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."

Opponents of same-sex marriage say the California Supreme Court properly respected the will of the people, reports Blackstone.

"The battle is over," said Howard Garber of the American Civil Responsibilities Union. "The fight on this issue has been settled."

A small group of Proposition 8 supporters gathered outside the court.

"A lot of people just assume we're religious nuts. We're not. But we are Christians and we believe in the Bible," said George Popko, 22, a student at American River College in Sacramento, where the student government officially endorsed Proposition 8.

In the state capital, Republican state Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo, the incoming minority leader, said the court's decision "reaffirmed the principle that the people's votes do matter."

The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. For a while, that put California - the nation's most populous state - back in its familiar position in the vanguard of social change; at the time, Massachusetts was the only other state to allow gay marriage.

In what gay activists called their "Summer of Love," same-sex couples from around the country rushed to get married in California for fear the voters would take away the right at the ballot box. In November, Proposition 8 passed with 52 percent approval.

Over the past several months, as the fight went on in California, Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage, bringing to five the number of states that allow same-sex couples to wed.

In California, gay rights activists argued that the ban was improperly put to the voters and amounted to a revision - which required legislative approval - not an amendment. But the justices disagreed.

The court said that while the ban denies gay couples use of the term "marriage," it does not fundamentally disturb their basic right to "establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one's choice and to raise children within the family." California still allows gay couples to form domestic partnerships.

In their 136-page majority ruling, the justices said it not their job to address whether the ban is wise public policy, but to decide whether it is constitutionally valid, while "setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

"No surprise here," said CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "It's a ruling that tracked the oral argument in the case where the Justices expressed concern about overturning Prop 8 as the expression of majority rule but also expressed support for existing same-sex marriages."

Cohen said the court's decision to allow existing same-sex marriages to continue means that there will not be two classes of same-sex unions in California. "That might prompt some sort of equal protection challenge down the road," he said.

Justice Carlos Moreno, who had been under consideration as President Barack Obama's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, was the lone dissenter.

He said denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a "drastic and far-reaching change."

"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," Moreno said. "Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office fought the ban, said: "Today we are faced with a disappointing decision. But I think we also know it could have been worse."

Democratic state Sen. Christine Kehoe of San Diego said that California "has lost its lead in the fight for civil rights for all people." And Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco warned the ruling would create "apartheid" in California.

[armyoftwelve]

You're just a bigot with what you think is an excuse
Posted by slownewday_05 at 10:39 AM : May 27, 2009

Name calling again?? I guess if you have no substantative arguement you can't do anything else........
Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

[hungry1968-15]

Homosexuality in my opinion is a mental illness
Posted by blog_fever2 at 8:04 AM : May 27, 2009





Ironically, your opinion is irrelevant.

[blog_fever2]

Homosexuality in my opinion is a mental illness

[talcoolone]

What I find amazing about this whole issue is that California, one of the most liberal states in the country opposes gay marriage, but Iowa, a state you'd think would be against gay marriage, actually condones it. Astounding!

[harp3coat]

Is that a scripture or a popular Christian phrase...

One more thing just to help you. The verse that Jesus is a friend that sticks closer than a bvrothjer is Proverbs 18:24.

Perhaps you may want to meditate on that passage today if you feel so led.
Posted by stuart2561


Alright, you believe in prophecy.Because you know Christ was not born before the Book of Proverbs was written. But hey, I've always believed that the Old Testament gave prophetic hints of the coming of Christ. I understand your point though, take care.

[harp3coat]

Like I said to you. Go back and re read my posts. I have addressed everything you just said and take the same stand as you. I do not know what your argumentative spirit is about. But as I also said, I will end it now until you learn a little christian humility. For your sake and mine. That is the mature thing to do.

Enjoy your day. Go with God.
Posted by stuart2561

Take care stuart2561. And I love you.

[harp3coat]

Jesus said He was a friend that is closer than a brother. Christians need to remember that and remember also that we live in the age of grace, not judgement. Jesus will take care of the judgement.
Posted by stuart2561

Is that a scripture or a popular Christian phrase. Did you know this same Jesus routinely condemn the unbelief of some of His own disciples. Did you know that he shamed men from stoning a woman and then turned around and told the woman to stop sinning. Did you know that He whipped up on some moneychangers in the synagogue. If I didn't know how to balance the life of Christ accordingly, I would believe that He was one mean dude. But because of the totality of scripture that I have absorbed, I know He wasn't. You need to learn that and stop nitpicking a scripture here and a scripture there.

[armyoftwelve]

I agree, and the way people chose to live thier life does'nt matter to me, I do agree with the court on this though.
Posted by nolies74621 at 6:47 AM : May 27, 2009

Right, in a free society you can't expect to rule your neighbor's soul. On the other hand, we don't have to accept the label "bigot" because we uphold traditional marriage between ONE man and ONE woman (an established legal precedent).

We also don't have to accept the forced "norming" of an alternative lifestyle that runs counter to the traditional morality that most people accept as a proper way to live...

...and we don't have remain idle over legitimate public safety concerns when certain people are getting beaten or cheated out of earned benefits due to their choices (see above about ruling your neighbors soul....)

[harp3coat]

After what people regularly say on these postings, if you think being termed gutless is insulting, you probably should remain secluded in your house and never come out. Because you will not be able to deal with what is out there in the world.
Posted by harp3coat at 6:50 AM : May 27, 2009


So you going out into the world calling people gutless when you do not even understand or know them is accomplishing what for this discussion?
Posted by stuart2561


I will call an atheist brave before I call someone who straddle the fence brave anyday. Like the saying goes, if you can't stand for something you will fall for anything, especially depending on where the wind blows.

[harp3coat]

If Christians are in a spirtual battle between Satan and his demons, if they battle against evils triumps, his fiery darts as it were, if Christians are not of this world although they be in the world, if Christians are not supposed to be alarmed nor surprised at the things in the world, then why all the bashing of the non-believers???

This that you do is more than an attempt to evangelize. It is an attack and very un-Christ like.

Remember Christians, you are there to simply plant the seed. God will cause the growth. Resist the temptation to be God. Have faith in God to do what He says He will do to those He has chosen. You do well to proclaim the affront of sin to God. But you who sin yet speak for God cannot claim that you are any different, you are any less guilty, that you need God's grace less.

Therefore, mind your own walk with God. And when you have the opportunity to witness God, witness with humility and grace.
Posted by stuart2561


stuart2561,
You are deluded in your own thought process. But I tell you what, how many examples do you want me to give to you of Christ getting people told or a piece of His mind. Since you have this deluded notion that He walked this earth and said absolutely nothing negative about anyone. Let me know when you are ready to be educated.

[harp3coat]

stuart2561,
You're opinions change like a moody person. One minute you believe and then the next you don't. Make up your mind. Stand for something or remain gutless all your life.
Posted by harp3coat at 6:45 AM : May 27, 2009

I am so thoroughly consistent. You must listen more. And why must you insult me? Did I insult anyone here today?

How is mane calling getting this discussion anywhere?
Posted by stuart2561


Stop being so sensitive. After what people regularly say on these postings, if you think being termed gutless is insulting, you probably should remain secluded in your house and never come out. Because you will not be able to deal with what is out there in the world.

[nolies74621]

EXCELLENT point! If you spend anytime at all posting stuff at CBSNews.com, you have no doubt noticed that there are some extremely intolerant people posting on this forum.
This is especially true for posters on stories such as this one.

Calling the other side "bigot" or "pervert" doesn't make for civil discussion.
Posted by armyoftwelve at 6:44 AM : May 27, 2009

I agree, and the way people chose to live thier life does'nt matter to me, I do agree with the court on this though.

[harp3coat]

Christianity has become a political party. As such it should be stripped of it's tax exempt status like all other political groups
Posted by johndevinejr


Sorry to inform you or keep you from sleeping at night, but that will never happen.

[armyoftwelve]

Christianity has become a political party. As such it should be stripped of it's tax exempt status like all other political groups
Posted by johndevinejr at 6:45 AM : May 27, 2009

Aw, gee we were just talking about bigotry too....

[harp3coat]

I am amazed at people who declare one minute that they don't believe in the Bible and then the next minute make silly attempts to quote scripture to try and prove their point. The Bible does not condemn anyone to state the truth of scripture. It teaches that there is a right way and wrong way to go about it. But it does not condone the suppression of speech.
Posted by harp3coat at 6:39 AM : May 27, 2009

I am amazed that you claim I ever... EVER said I did not believe in the Bible. I do not believe in the same thing you just posted....namely, mis-using the word of God to make a point that is contrary to the Scripture they use.
Posted by stuart2561


stuart2561,
You're opinions change like a moody person. One minute you believe and then the next you don't. Make up your mind. Stand for something or remain gutless all your life.

[johndevinejr]

Christianity has become a political party. As such it should be stripped of it's tax exempt status like all other political groups

[armyoftwelve]

So that would make gays bigots as well correct? The intolerance to accept that there are those that do not believe that Gays should marry? Just wondering how many are kicking around on high horses with the Bigot word.
Posted by nolies74621 at 6:38 AM : May 27, 2009

EXCELLENT point! If you spend anytime at all posting stuff at CBSNews.com, you have no doubt noticed that there are some extremely intolerant people posting on this forum.
This is especially true for posters on stories such as this one.

Calling the other side "bigot" or "pervert" doesn't make for civil discussion.

[johndevinejr]

MARRIAGE IS A SPIRITUAL TERM AND IS A HOLY UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN HELD TOGETHER BY OUR CREATOR.
Posted by darnedsocks at 6:34 AM : May 27, 2009

In keeping with the spirit or your statement, wouldn't it be best to maintain the holy union between a man and a woman held together by our creator by banning divorce?

I would suggest that until you decide to ban divorce all of the claims concerning the sanctity of marriage are simple hypocrisy.

[harp3coat]

And I do not believe in gay relationships nor Gay marriage. Everyone knows that. But I do not believe it is my job nor anyone's to bash people over the head with the Bible about it. That in unscriptual.
Posted by stuart2561

No it is not. I am amazed at people who declare one minute that they don't believe in the Bible and then the next minute make silly attempts to quote scripture to try and prove their point. The Bible does not condemn anyone to state the truth of scripture. It teaches that there is a right way and wrong way to go about it. But it does not condone the suppression of speech.

[armyoftwelve]

Before I answer you I must confess my ignorance as to who Frank Rich is. Can you tell me?
Posted by stuart2561 at 6:13 AM : May 27, 2009

He's a columnist for the New York Times, he's ALL OVER the internet......