Court upholds California gay marriage ban

[Newsjock]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/15687923.htm

The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco ruled today that California's marriage laws banning same-sex marriage do not violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Link to the ruling?

And what are the chances that the state Supreme Court will pick up the appeal?

If they don't, I hope people in California will being an initiative similar to the one I've got cooked up for Washington (see link in sig.)

[davidinalameda]

2. sometime next year

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/05/BAG4KLJAF24.DTL

A state appeals court upheld California's ban on same-sex marriage today.

In a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeal in San Francisco said the power to define marriage in a democratic society "rests in the people and their elected representatives,'' not the courts. The law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, passed in 1977, violates no fundamental rights, the court said.

The ruling overturned a decision last year by Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco Superior Court, who said the marriage law violates the state Constitution by discriminating on the basis of sex and by denying gays and lesbians the right to marry the partner of their choice.

The California Supreme Court is expected to have the last word in the case sometime next year.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Since the bigots keep saying that marriage exists for procreation...

And since the court has proclaimed that the power to define marriage rests in the people, it seems quite logical to float an initiative in California wherein procreation becomes a requirement for marriage.

I hereby promise 250 USD to such a campaign, to be paid within 30 days of the initiative being certified to collect signatures. :hi:

[sandnsea]

8. Any other law like this?

Is there any other law that only applies to a certain group of adults? I can't think of anything off hand. They're basically saying that "society", through their legislators, can define anything it wants to, any way it wants to - just like we did with voting and land ownership, etc etc. :crazy:

[slackmaster]

3. Link to 1st District Court of Appeal

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/1stDistrict/

Links to the ruling are right at the top of the pile.

...We conclude California’s historical definition of marriage does not deprive individuals of a vested fundamental right or discriminate against a suspect class, and thus we analyze the marriage statutes to determine whether the opposite-sex requirement is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. According the Legislature the extreme deference that rational basis review requires, we conclude the marriage statutes are constitutional. The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat....

Darn activist judges.

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. Thanks! n/t

[closeupready]

4. This particular case is not about defining marriage; it's about sexism

i.e., discriminating against the "wrong" gender with regard to which gender each party to a marriage contract may be.

[Katzenjammer]

6. The plaintiffs screwed up

They should have challenged on the grounds that they are prevented from getting the economic benefits given solely to those who can marry.

[dback]

7. Well, I guess we'll stay in Oregon then

If California was going to overturn it, we'd have to think real hard about moving back. But we might as well stay here and push for civil unions. (Washington may do the same thing.) Or maybe we'll just get married on my birthday in Victoria, Canada.

[xchrom]

9. ...

:grr:

[matcom]

10. as shitty as this is, TECHNICALLY the court is right

i may be 100% wrong here but have been thinking about this ever since my GREAT state of Massachusetts granted gays the 'right' to marry.

i said at the time that here in MA it was historic for THIS reason. once you 'give' (bullshit I know but 'give' nonetheless) a citizen a 'right' (again, I know) it becomes almost IMPOSSIBLE Constitutionally to take that 'right' away.

once someone HAS a 'right', someone else can't arbitrarily take that 'right' away under the Constitution just because they don't like it.

it seems to me that it is MUCH harder for some of the states to 'grant a new right' to its citizens than strip that 'right' later.

please, no flames. i am 1000% behind gay marriage, have been to 3 gay weddings and my open-ended invite for ANY gay DUers who want to marry in my Massachusetts back yard still stands.

[slackmaster]

12. I'd phrase it a little differently

Gays inherently have the right to marry. Their right has been infringed.

States don't create rights. They can only curtail them, either by due process of law or by unconstitutional infringements. The line between the two processes can get blurry, especially when a majority of the population supports the infringement.

[matcom]

13. it could (and SHOULD) very easily go that way

the language is dicey here I know. i firmly believe that any "right" (I HATE that phrase) that I have EVERYONE else has as well.

just saying that MY argument when it passed here in the Commonwealth was one of joy since (under the Constitution) once you GRANT someone a right, it makes it MUCH harder to take away.