Join Our Community!
Share
Debate Forums > General Debate Forum > Gay Marriage is Legal in CA (Page 1)
User Profile
Q: Gay Marriage is Legal in CA
asked by: Birch on May 17th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Have the tides turned? Are Americans willing to accept same sex marriages?

In California, looks like it:

California's top court legalizes gay marriage
By LISA LEFF – 1 day ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, the historic center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and 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," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. The California ruling is considered monumental by virtue of the state's size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historic role in the vanguard of the many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "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."

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays from around the country are likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, a gay-rights attorney who worked on the case.

The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most states do not recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the federal government.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization.

Opponents of gay marriage could also ask the high court to reconsider. If the court rejects such a request, same-sex couples could start getting married in 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

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."

The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four-thousand gay couples 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.

Thursday's ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race and state and congressional contests in California and beyond by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large numbers.

A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions." The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

Ten states now offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples — in most cases, domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the past few years, the courts in New York, New Jersey and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage.

Outside the San Francisco courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said same-sex marriage advocates could not have hoped for a more favorable ruling by the Republican-dominated court. "It's a total victory," Minter said.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man, one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that passed with 61 percent in 2000.

The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a Democrat.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage 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 that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

Associated Press writers Terence Chea, Jason Dearen, Juliana Barbassa and Evelyn Nieves in San Francisco and Liz Sidoti in Washington contributed to this report.
Hosted by Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZmLBrL 36NObNyMR0ghXN7vB5hYwD90MB6P00
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank Birch for this post: diamondsz 
Replies(30)
Avatar
mlynn
replied on May 18th, 2008
New User
GO California. Finially a state that realizes personal morals and religious biased don't determine soemone else's rights.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank mlynn for this post: homerx 
User Profile
lonestarguy
replied on May 18th, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
I've always viewed California as a progressive state. With the large number of gays in the state, I thought that it would be one of the first to grant the right for same-sex couples to marry.

It is good to know that there are people who do respect the rights of gays as couples to have the same legal rights as everyone else.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank lonestarguy for this post: homerx  diamondsz 
Avatar
cmyked
replied on May 18th, 2008
Experienced User
I saw this and cheered!! Very Happy
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank cmyked for this post: homerx 
User Profile
Beline
replied on May 19th, 2008
Supporter
yes yes yes Me too! cartwheel
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank Beline for this post: homerx 
User Profile
sillyakchick
replied on May 19th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
I am glad someone has finally gotten the proper attention of the courts.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Roberta777
replied on May 20th, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
It Is About Time
And, time is of the essence, because they will undoubtedly overturn this.

So, I say to those who want to take their vows, do it now.

It is time to live your own lives. Nobody has the right to that but you.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank Roberta777 for this post: homerx 
Avatar
aochriss
replied on May 21st, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Massachusetts stands as testimony to the fact that legalizing gay marriage has NO EFFECT on anyone else's marriage, other than the individual gay couple getting married.

This puts to bed the ridiculous objection from conservative fanatics who claim that gay marriage "makes marriage meaningless" or "breaks down the traditional family", or any other insane objection they may have.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank aochriss for this post: homerx 
User Profile
Beline
replied on May 23rd, 2008
Supporter
Oh, my greatness! "makes marriage meaningless" or "breaks down the traditional family"? What is that all about?
Let’s take Homerx for an example. He and his partner have been together for 14 years, living monogamously. Homer has Aids, his partner is aware of this, and he loves and supports him unconditionally. Isn’t that what marriage should be? For better or worse? How can that be meaningless?
As for breaking down the traditional family - I have to agree with you Aochriss - it’s an insane objection, so don’t get me started on that one.

I just had a discussion with my fiancé on the definition of marriage. We both agree that a wedding and the vows are only the confirmation of what should be there before the ceremony. You have to be committed, loyal, supportive, loving, caring etc. before you take the ‘big step’. The piece of paper and wedding rings should only be tangible symbols. So many couples already have all these qualities in their relationships, and yet, because of a bunch of extremists, they can’t marry. What happened to equality and human rights? Why can some people marry and others can’t?
I’m South African, living in a third world country, and we don’t object to ANYBODY who would like to confirm their love for one another by getting married.
Viva SA in that regard.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank Beline for this post: Roberta777  homerx 
User Profile
Birch
replied on May 23rd, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Beline wrote:
Oh, my greatness! "makes marriage meaningless" or "breaks down the traditional family"? What is that all about?
Let’s take Homerx for an example. He and his partner have been together for 14 years, living monogamously. Homer has Aids, his partner is aware of this, and he loves and supports him unconditionally. Isn’t that what marriage should be? For better or worse? How can that be meaningless?
As for breaking down the traditional family - I have to agree with you Aochriss - it’s an insane objection, so don’t get me started on that one.

I just had a discussion with my fiancé on the definition of marriage. We both agree that a wedding and the vows are only the confirmation of what should be there before the ceremony. You have to be committed, loyal, supportive, loving, caring etc. before you take the ‘big step’. The piece of paper and wedding rings should only be tangible symbols. So many couples already have all these qualities in their relationships, and yet, because of a bunch of extremists, they can’t marry. What happened to equality and human rights? Why can some people marry and others can’t?
I’m South African, living in a third world country, and we don’t object to ANYBODY who would like to confirm their love for one another by getting married.
Viva SA in that regard.


It's really nice to have an international perspective on issues like this.

You wouldn't believe what people think about here when it comes to homosexual love. The presidential candidate John McCain spoke on a talk show hosted by a lesbian: "Although the Republican candidate was politically polite, he defended his views on marriage by saying he believed it was reserved only for a man and a woman." Absurd.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank Birch for this post: homerx 
Avatar
cmyked
replied on May 23rd, 2008
Experienced User
My news channel just ran a Memorial Day special about those religious wacko's (this coming from a christian!) who somehow think homosexuality = dead soldiers. Those nutters need a lobotomy.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank cmyked for this post: homerx 
User Profile
Beline
replied on May 25th, 2008
Supporter
I posted this question on Homerx’s topic as well - Why is Christianity always an issue when it comes to gay marriage? If it is a ‘Christianity’ issue, why don’t they object to atheists getting married? And if the same sex couple happens to be Christians? Then what?
Did you find this post useful?
|
Users who thank Beline for this post: homerx 
Avatar
cmyked
replied on May 26th, 2008
Experienced User
It's not a "Christianity" issue. It's a gender issue. Some Christians are using outdated passages from the Bible to say that marriage should only be for a male and a female.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Beline
replied on May 26th, 2008
Supporter
That’s my point, Cmyked. Why don’t Christians use this same Bible to say that atheist can’t marry? It’s a ‘Christian tradition’ for the lack of a better word. I’m a Christian, but I believe - like you - that these passages in the Bible are outdated.
For crying out load: a lot of Christians get married and divorced at the drop of a hat, where many gays are in monogamous relationships for years.
I’m just so glad that CA has realized this, and is allowing these darling people to commit to each other in a legal way too.
Ps. Something that I love about the people of this forum: everybody seems to be liberated. I have difficulty communicating with narrow minded people.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
cmyked
replied on May 27th, 2008
Experienced User
Because once again, it is not about religion, it is about GENDER. It's about looking at those few passages and focusing on them like there's no tomorrow. No where in the Bible does it say "non believers cannot marry". Technically, even in those old passages it doesn't say gays can't marry either, just that men can't have sex the way a man and a woman can have sex...

Which if you think about it, is impossible anyway since men don't have vaginas! Very Happy There! All the Bible was trying to say was don't have vaginal sex with men! LOL!
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Beline
replied on May 27th, 2008
Supporter
You're a nut! Laughing
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
cmyked
replied on May 27th, 2008
Experienced User
Hehe XD I can prove Romans has been interpreted wrong for centuries!
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
homerx
replied on May 29th, 2008
Moderator
You all make me feel SO good...thanks... voices wave respect luvcomp good 2thumbs 4you
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
homerx
replied on May 29th, 2008
Moderator
Beline wrote:
Oh, my greatness! "makes marriage meaningless" or "breaks down the traditional family"? What is that all about?
Let’s take Homerx for an example. He and his partner have been together for 14 years, living monogamously. Homer has Aids, his partner is aware of this, and he loves and supports him unconditionally. Isn’t that what marriage should be? For better or worse? How can that be meaningless?
As for breaking down the traditional family - I have to agree with you Aochriss - it’s an insane objection, so don’t get me started on that one.

I just had a discussion with my fiancé on the definition of marriage. We both agree that a wedding and the vows are only the confirmation of what should be there before the ceremony. You have to be committed, loyal, supportive, loving, caring etc. before you take the ‘big step’. The piece of paper and wedding rings should only be tangible symbols. So many couples already have all these qualities in their relationships, and yet, because of a bunch of extremists, they can’t marry. What happened to equality and human rights? Why can some people marry and others can’t?
I’m South African, living in a third world country, and we don’t object to ANYBODY who would like to confirm their love for one another by getting married.
Viva SA in that regard.
I want to move to SA...the people are beautiful and the attitude is awesome...Viva SA is right! thanks,Doll Very Happy
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Beline
replied on May 29th, 2008
Supporter
O.o no, Baby! You stay right where you are! Xenophobia has reached an all time high here. People are ‘necklaced’ in the streets, and I’m not joking. It’s horrific.
Rather deal with a bunch of narrow minded rednecks than coming here. It’s just not safe. Take note: I said ‘viva SA in THAT REGARD’ As for the rest: Eek! Not a good place to be.
Did you find this post useful?
|
12 >>
Quick Reply
Search