Gay marriage legal in California, court declares

[maddezmom]

Source: SacBee

SAN FRANCISCO - A deeply divided California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in an opinion issued Thursday morning.

Wild cheers echoed throughout City Hall and other spots where proponents had gathered Thursday morning awaiting the opinion, which came on a 4-3 vote.

The case stems from challenges to state law by gay couples who were married in ceremonies at San Francisco City Hall in 2004, when Mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Legal challenges to those marriages eventually led to the high court invalidating them six months later. California voters already had approved by a wide margin a measure in 2000 that declared marriage to be only between a man and a woman.


Attorney Shannon Minter, back to camera, is hugged by plaintiff Stuart Gaffney in March 2008 as Gaffney's partner John Lewis, right, looks on. Minter argued on behalf of Lewis and Gaffney in the same-sex marriage case that went before the California Supreme Court at the State of California Building in San Francisco. Chronicle photo by Kim Komenich

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/102/story/941526.html

---

:applause:


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the following statement today regarding the state Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

http://queerfresno.com/2008/05/15/supreme-court-overturned-ban-on-gay-marriage/

[Kittycat]

1. Listening on MSNBC as well

Very big step forward. 2nd state (Mass 1st). Opens the door for other states to move forward.

Good news for the GLBT group.

[crimsonblue]

No...

good news for ALL Americans.. This is the American people taking their rights back, one at a time. We need the government the hell out of our personal lives... Congrats to ANY and ALL men and women who may now marry the person they love, irregardless of sexual orientation. This wasn't a gay rights victory, this was a human rights victory. :hug:


(sorry if i that came off bad.. i'm just another breeder.. i don't want to diminish everyone's historic day :))

[phrigndumass]

38. Absolutely! Thanks for saying that, crimsonblue!

When one segment of our population has their rights enforced, we all move forward.

:hi:

[Kaleko]

128. First Obama wins, then Edwards joins forces with him, and now this

victory for gay rights. Pretty soon America might catch up to the Netherlands and Germany if we keep the momentum going.

Let that pendulum swing, boys and girls, it's swishing to the left, at last!

[DutchLiberal]

188. Obama let a homophobic speak at his rally. Edwards opposes gay marriage.

So that leaves us with 'only' this California SC ruling...

[Kaleko]

233. Erm, let's just say that something tells me

that neither Obama nor Edwards will stand in the way of more progressive rulings on human rights issues across the board.

And why not celebrate today :party:

[indie_voter]

66. Spot on!! This is a victory for all of us who value civil liberties. n/t

[Joe Bacon]

285. My girlfriend and I know what the bigots really want to do

I'm Jewish and my girlfriend is black. We KNOW that the bible beating ignorant Christians in California really have their eyes on repealing the Loving vs. Virginia case. They believe that going after gays and lesbians is just the first step to reinstating the segregation they crave. We will not let them have their way. We have had enough of their ignorant Christian bullshit! Let them try to put their hatred of gays and lesbians on the California ballot this fall. We're going to work our butts off to give these ignorant bigoted Christians the asskicking they so richly deserve. NO asshole waving a Bi-Bull has the right to tell me or anyone else whom I will or will not love. Nobody. NOBODY has the right to tell me and my girlfriend what we will do in a bedroom with our door locked and the drapes closed. NOBODY! We're tired of being lectured to by ignorant people about the "Curse of Ham". We're tired of being told by neighbors that our relationship is ungodly. We're fucking sick and tired of Christian hatred. We're tired of these hypocrites who talk the Jesus talk but walk the Ayn Rand walk. We're tired of them bullshitting about their love for Freddy and Freida Fetus as long as they are in the womb, but once they pop out, these same Christians don't give a rats ass if little Freddy or Freida starve to death, get sexually abused, or denied a fair shot at life. AND WE DON'T NEED TO BE LECTURED ANYMORE BY THE LIKES OF CLOSET QUEENS LIKE TED HAGGARD OR PAUL CROUCH!

[yardwork]

111. Thank you so much! You're absolutely right - this is a Human Rights Victory!

[Zavulon]

129. Well said, crimsonblue.

I've been saying this about gay marriage for years, but people who argue with me tell me that I have "no credibility" because I'm straight. You know, like only gay people can support gay rights. Assholes.

[customerserviceguy]

216. I don't seem to remember

black folks complaining about white folks protesting the South African embassies during the apartheid years. The only credibility you need to stand up for your fellow humans is to be a human.

[dogfacedboy]

257. I'm in the same boat. n/t

[katty]

173. yup, here is CA, happy about this-Live and Let Live!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

2. YES!

Good news indeed!!

[Barrett808]

3. Big rec! n/t

[indie_voter]

4. SFgate link. Great great news!!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/14/state/n111151D62.DTL

[Maven]

5. Get outta the way, Arnold

You have no more excuses, you tool!

:woohoo:

[Bolo Boffin]

157. You posted before she edited, but it looks like Arnold's on board.

Giving up the fight when there were battles left he could have fought counts in his favor a little bit.

Happy, happy days.

[Tat]

180. It does give him some cred.

He's going to run for senator in '10 against Feinstein, and win.

Not only that, but if the constitution were amended to allow him to run for president, he'd stand a good chance of taking California in the general.


I live in California and voted against (I voted for the guy running against him) the guy twice. But, he's actually really popular even when he's screwing up. He's also *actually* practicing fiscal conservativism to add to his resume, by balancing the budget, even if his previous ideas have been retarded and needed a thumping accordingly.

[Bluenorthwest]

Except that the state is in financial shambles

He does not have a balanced bugdet. The State is losing ground each day and the administration is as oblivious as the majority of the population. Today alone I read two stories of tax hikes and cut backs that will not balance the budget. The Yacht loophole remains of course.

[nichomachus]

6. There's going to be another ballot on it this year

Does this ruling pre-empt that. The one coming up for vote would amend the state constitution.

[nichomachus]

41. The fight's not over -- it's just beginning -- I just got this from the Human Rights Campaign

Same-sex couples win the right to marry in California!

Today, California's highest court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is unconstitutional, granting loving, committed gay and lesbian couples the dignity and support their relationships have so long been denied.

Two words sum up how I feel at this moment: proud and determined.

I'm proud of Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued this case, and all the advocates who worked tirelessly to make this day possible. More than anything, I am proud of you and all of HRC's supporters who, rather than backing down in response to bigotry and hate, have continued this fight.

And I'm determined to make this win stick. Our right-wing opponents are using this moment to build a $10 million war chest for an amendment this November to ban same-sex marriage in California.

That's why we've set up a special fund to direct 100% of your gift today to this fight in California. Don't let them use our victory to get the upper hand.

Donate today and send your dollars straight to California to protect this victory for equality!

I would love to tell you to take a day to sit back and enjoy this momentous victory. While this win is certainly a reason to celebrate, this is not a day to rest easy.

In fact, sitting back is exactly the reaction the right-wing is hoping for. We can't afford to let them turn our success into their win.

Focus on the Family, the National Organization for Marriage and their anti-gay friends want to write discrimination into the constitution of the most populous state in our country and undo what we've achieved today.

The National Organization for Marriage's own web site is calling on their supporters to give $10 million so they can blanket the state with anti-gay messages in the coming months.

They think you'll be too busy celebrating to notice as they amass their millions. I think they're wrong.

HRC is a member of Equality for All, the coalition of groups working together to defeat the marriage ban in California. Funds raised today will go to support Equality for All's efforts.

Click here to make a gift that will go straight to California to keep discrimination out of the constitution!

This is a momentous day. Let's make sure it doesn't become a piece of history this November.

Thanks for your generous support,
Joe Solmonese

President

P.S. Celebrations are taking place all over the state today. Check out the list and find the one closest to you. We hope to see you there!

[cui bono]

104. Aw... I wanted to post that I had donated but the link won't load.

Glad to hear the good news none the less.

:bounce:

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TechBear_Seattle]

140. The ruling was issued in light of the state constitution as it currently exists

If the state constitution is changed (and the proposed ballot measure is to change the state constitution) then yes, the ruling can be overturned. However, that would not be automatic: the Court would have to rehear the case and issue a new ruling in light of the changes.

[reggie the dog]

161. Unless

The supreme court of California found that the ballot inicitave amendment violated the rights of gay people as specified by another part of the constitution, for example if gay people can marry because they have equal rights then changing one part of the constitution to say that marriage was between a man and a woman would not work, they would have to change the part of the constitution dealing with equality. Any constitutional lawyers out there want to chime in on this one?????

[TechBear_Seattle]

172. Which is why I said the case would have to be reheard

When two parts of the constitution appear to be in conflict, it is the duty of the Court to clarify how, in a given situation, that conflict is to be resolved. If the proposed amendment gets passed, then it would contradict the very basis of this ruling. The Court would have to take up the issue again to determine which part has precedent in what situations.

I've not had the opportunity to read the ruling in depth yet, but it certainly looks like the Court not only declared same-sex marriage a fact in California but also set the bar very high for the proposed amendment to be declared valid and enforceable.

[customerserviceguy]

217. Uhmmm,

It seems to me to be impossible for a state Supreme Court to declare a properly enacted state Constitutional amendment un-Constitutional. All the more reason to make sure the fundies get powerfully opposed on this in November. My bet is that even McCain will not try to make political hay out of this, a fair number of independents who vote for him in CA in Nov. will vote against this proposed amendment.

[AlbertCat]

270. Also....

.....as Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show yesterday, when in Mass. same sex marriage was passed and had been the law for a while, because the sky hadn't fallen and it hadn't affected straights at all, the opposition started to sound real nutty and shrill and their support deflated quickly.....because all the dire warnings were shown to be bunk.

So by the time a CA Constitutional amendment gets around to be voted on....it will be obvious that same sex marriage is no threat to anything or anyone.

[Tafiti]

228. No, statutory law always trumps common (judge-made) law.

So the legislature can always trump the courts. Ballot measures are essentially a legislative process, so they would trump any court decision. It's pretty common for legislatures (both state and federal) to pass laws in direct response to a court's decision (if its ruling was contrary to the legislature's intent in drafting the law).

[Maven]

280. Not in this case it doesn't.

This case had to do with constitutional interpretation, not statutory interpretation. In fact, one of the statutes struck down by this decision was passed by voter initiative. It doesn't matter how many times the legislature passes the same unconstitutional law; once it's declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it's invalid unless the constitution is amended to allow it.

[Tafiti]

286. Sorry, I didn't read the opinion.

What I meant is that the legislature would look at the court's decision and figure out why the law as drafted is unconstitutional, and make the necessary changes to make it constitutional to the court's satisfaction. Of course they wouldn't be submitting the exact same law. I just wonder if the ballot measure will somehow skirt this opinion, though I'm completely unfamiliar with California's state constitution and how the ballot measure will read.

[wellstone dem]

7. I've got tears in my eyes

blessings on my gay brothers and lesbian sissters. I am so happy for you.

[Maven]

8. The opinion specifically REJECTS "separate but equal"

Link to the opinion (PDF) here:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is
not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California
Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while
denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship
with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our
state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which
both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an
officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal
rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution
of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially
designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially
designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether,
under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of
same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

[Nikki Stone1]

9. And there is the precedent!

Excellent. Just excellent!

[Greyskye]

10. Woo-hoo!

IM'ing w/ a friend in CO currently - she's crying tears of joy right now.

[ThatsMyBarack]

209. You should be DANCING! YEAH!!!!!!

I heart disco! :bounce:

[PageOneQ]

11. California overturns gay marriage ban

Source: PageOneQ

The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

Read more: http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/california_supreme_051508.html

[xchrom]

12. recommend!

:applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause:

[Tikki]

13. As capitalistic as this may sound...

...there is money to be made in marriage ceremonies of all types.

I'm all for local small business bringing money into my community with
products and services catering to the loving gay couple.


Tikki

[pink-o]

151. Well, since you bring up capitalism...

I've been suspicious for years that $$$$$ is what's stopping The System from allowing same-sex marriage. The fake "values" "against God" et al, is truly believed by the crazy fundies, but those in power who pay lip service have a whole 'nother agenda. If more people could get married, that would mean more penisons paid to spouses, more medical coverage, harder for the state to lay claim to property...well, you get the idea.

No matter how much cash weddings and such may generate, the real money to finance spouses is far more. That's why The System has fought it.

I'm old and cynical, so I will follow the money with anything I see that's stupid and arbitrary. And I usually find the cash agenda!

[fudge stripe cookays]

160. Yep, it's all about insurance costs.

Far more profitable to charge folks out the nose when they have no health insurance and can't be put on their partner's.

This is such wonderful news. So happy for my GLBT friends. :D

[GodlessBiker]

14. California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

Source: NYTimes

Just a headline on nytimes.com. No link to story.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-CA-GayMarriage.html

[gateley]

15. California had a gay marriage ban?

My God -- that's really disturbing. I hope the headline is correct!

[GodlessBiker]

16. I believe it was by statute, not a constitutional amendment.

[keepCAblue]

123. Prop 22....

which was voted on and passed in the wake of Hawaii's close-call with legalizing ss marriage. The proposition defined marriage as between one man and one woman....no changes to the state's constitution, however.

[satireV]

282. There was no gay marriage ban

it was a same sex marriage ban.

The intent was of course to insituionalize hatred of gays.

But two same sex hets were also banned from marrying.

it's nit picking, but in law, who ever picks the nit the best...wins!

[JoDog]

17. It's beaking on MSNBC.com Too

Yeeeeee-HAW!

[sniffa]

18. w00t!

:woohoo:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

19. All right!

I have many gay and lesbian brothers and sisters who live in CA. I am heartened for them, and hope that this court ruling will be upheld!

[TommyO]

21. It was ruled on by the CA Supreme Court

There is no higher court to appeal to in this case. Marriage equality is now the law in California.

[aquart]

24. Oh my.

You mean it? Please, you mean it? (And in parenthesis, New York, get off your ass!)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

26. Hooray!

Wish I was out there to officiate at a mass wedding!

[Traction311]

124. False

The artical (at the bottom) said an appeal to the US Supreme Court is likely.

[grantcart]

149. The supreme court has nothing to say

people can appeal all they want this is a state issue with no federal interest

[reggie the dog]

163. marriage is a right reserved for the states

unless you have a situation in which the US constitution is changed to ban gay marriage. Then the states would lose their rights to deal with marriage.

[Name removed]

283. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

175. If it were even possible, don't you think Massachusetts would have done it?

That is, the Rethugs in Massachusetts.

[Oeditpus Rex]

20. From KPIX in San Francisco:

http://cbs5.com/local/gay.marriage.ruling.2.724840.html

They've interrupted regular crappy programming to cover it live. :D



:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Nikki Stone1]

22. Wow!

This is GREAT!

[xchrom]

23. recommend

:applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

[Fox Mulder]

25. That's great news!

:woohoo:

[ismnotwasm]

27. Awesome

Right on California!

[meegbear]

28. Congrats!!!

:woohoo:

[slackmaster]

29. Now my gay and lesbian friends have the right to be miserable like the rest of us!

(Until they move to another state other than Massachusetts and try to exercise any privileges that are reserved for married people.)

A small step in the right direction IMO, but the battle is going to be fierce. This decision will enrage and empower the people who plan to put an initiative on the ballot to amend the state constitution to permanently ban same-sex marriages.

So to those who feel this is a meaningful victory, I'll raise a glass and drink with you today.

:toast:

[N4457S]

72. What Will Happen Next...

...is for conservatives in states like Ohio to drive old people to the polls with it this Fall.

That's what happened in 2004.

[slackmaster]

89. There may be enough people who are conservative on that issue in CA to kill it again

As they did solidly in the March 2000 primary.

See results for Proposition 22.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/contents.htm

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_primary/sum_measures.pdf

[customerserviceguy]

220. Possibly

but we've had marriage equality in MA for about four and a half years, and the sky has not fallen in that time. There have been a number of developments in the field of marriage equality since 2000, Gallup polls on the subject have shown a softening of irrationality about the subject in the intervening years.

[closeupready]

30. Oh, wow! Applauding the CA Supreme Court here!

:applause:

[BadgerKid]

31. So are all "marriages" marriages now?

just asking for clarification because others have made the point that civil unions don't enjoy the same rights as marriages in terms of laws, insurance, death, illness, etc.

[slackmaster]

39. Present CA civil unions allow the same benefits as marriage at the state level

An insurance company can't treat CU people differently than married people without running afoul of state insurance regulations.

CU benefits do not apply to federal taxes, etc.

[nichomachus]

47. They're not civil unions -- and the current law is a mess

It's called "registered domestic partnership" and it's not the happy "almost as good as" as people would have you think. The drawbacks far outweigh the benefits and I would advise people to seek sound legal and financial advice before getting into one. Many people I know are dissolving them because of the drawbacks.

[BadgerKid]

49. Thanks.

A big first step then. Good for California!

[JerseygirlCT]

144. In CA, I would think yes, once the 30 days before this goes into

effect have passed.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[ronnykmarshall]

196. I'm not so shut the fuck up!

I'm donating to fight to keep gay marriage legal in California !

https://secure.ga3.org/03/caequalpac


Piss off!

[MethuenProgressive]

210. Looks like all the Hillary supporters took their wallets with them after..

..they were "targetted for banning," etc.

[ronnykmarshall]

212. I know, huh?

And also found out what was more important to me.

If Hillary's out of the race, then defeating that anti-gay shit is where I'm directing my efforts and money to.

[NorthCarolina]

264. Actually, that's money much better spent

from a humanitarian perspective. I salute you for that.:hi:

[Clintonista2]

211. k&r

[golddigger]

225. A big K&R.

:kick:

[rodeodance]

231. LOL

[Name removed]

254. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthCarolina]

265. Thanks for the link

just made a donation myself.

[ronnykmarshall]

267. Thank you so much!!

:yourock:

[Clintonista2]

33. K&R

[AntiFascist]

34. K&R !!

:party: :toast:

[AtomicKitten]

35. This is HUGE!!!!

[RexDart]

36. First off -- HUZZAH!

But I have a couple of questions that I couldn't figure that out from the story. With this overturned, are the license windows at county buildings open for gay couples today? Will they stay open until the next legal challenge? What does this do to the next shitty prop that the right wing brings in front of the voters?

Sorry for the choppy post, but this is the best news I've heard all month, even better then Edwards last night...

[slackmaster]

48. Very good questions, welcome to DU!

The practical aspects of this decision are going to cause quite a bit of chaos in the short term.

Medium term, I think there is a strong possibility that the California Protect Marriage Act people will prevail in the November election, neutralizing today's decision.

Even if all California county clerks immediately start issuing marriage licenses without regard to gender, those licenses will not be honored by any other state except MA.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

230. What about the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution??

The full faith and credit clause says that one state must respect the laws of another state. IOW, a gay couple gets married in CA or MA, and moves to another state, so according to the Constitution, another state must recognize that as a valid marriage.

At least that's how I think it works.

[slackmaster]

234. Arizona could just say they recognize a gay couples' right to be married in California

:shrug:

California does not recognize any other states' licenses for carrying concealed firearms. Why should any other state recognize a license granting status that is illegal in their state?

(Just playing Devils' Advocate. I am for same-sex marriage, but there are a lot of roadblocks ahead.)

[last1standing]

37. Newsom has been vindicated and will go down in history for this.

He was the one who broke the homophobic stranglehold on California.

Oh yeah... FUCK YOU, ARNIE!!!

[reggie the dog]

165. Arnie is on our side on this one now

He said he supports the decision of the court, will respect the rights of all people, and will campaign against banning gay marriage in the CA constitution.

[slackmaster]

235. And if the proposed CA constitutional amendment to ban it again passes in November

You can bet Herr Gropenfurer will respect that too.

[dbackjon]

40. AWESOME!!!!

[Ian David]

42. YESSSSSS!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!! n/t

[Bensthename]

43. This will now be on the ballot this Nov. .. Oh lord the con fundies will be out in fource...

This is how the GOP gets votes in dem states. Put these issues on the ballot to get the bible thumping hillbillies out of the woods to vote in the gen election. And it works for them.

Though I hope it wins in the gen election vote. That would be a huge blow to rePubes and a great win for us progressives and our wonderful gay communities.

[slackmaster]

56. The same-sex marriage ban that just got overturned was supported by about 2/3 of CA voters

We don't have that many bible-thumping hillbillies out there.

Here's the key to understanding why - A large percentage of CA people are of Mexican or other Latin American descent. About 90% of them are practicing Roman Catholics.

The RCC, not Southern or Appalachian-type evangelicals, is the lynch pin of opposition to same-sex marriage in California.

[Bensthename]

60. Oh wow

I did not know that.. Thats cool.. Also I just heard the govenator is endorsing this as well.. Good news for sure..

[Divine Discontent]

251. excellent points

some of the most aggressively anti-gay people I've met in Orlando are Latin Catholics. My friend, a lesbian, who is Puerto Rican had a very hard time coming out because of the aggressive negative feelings in general towards the GLBTers, and it's even worse with other Latinos. In general, of course. There are millions of supportive people of all types who support GLBTers around the world, but it is noteworthy to state what you said - and it's a point that deserves to be brought up - so thank you! We need to find a way to break that RCC's stranglehold on how they influence peddle the view that we GLBTers are unworthy to be acknowledged of being joined together in a union.




New Obama Items Weekly!
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[LeftyMom]

84. That's not a given.

They turned in their signatures *weeks* ago, it's too late to get any more, and they're still not qualified for the ballot. It's quite possible (I'd go so far as to say likely) that the anti-marriage proposition isn't going to have enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Reasons why:

1. I'm told they had a very high rate of invalid signatures. There are a couple of details in CA law that can invalidate a petition signature (other than the obvious, like not being a registered voter or using the wrong address.) For one thing, all the signatures on the page have to be from the same county. If Pastor Jim Bob Jones of the First Church of the Tax Deduction has his parishioners sign the petition (and they got a lot of sigs that way) and one of them is from another county, that whole page is invalid. Paid gatherers know this, volunteers frequently don't. The second is that duplicate signatures are all invalid. So if Bobbie Sue Baptist signs at work and then again at Safeway, both signatures are invalid. Problems like this can make a real dent in the number of sigs.

2. Just prior to the submission of the signatures, they increased compensation of paid signature gatherers to an almost unheard of $1.50 a signature. Normally $0.75 is considered pretty high. Paying that much at the last minute would suggest they feared the count would come up short and needed a last minute push. The last minute signature gathering effort was largely unsuccessful, from what I've heard.

[Bensthename]

119. thats cool

I did not know all of that. I did hear they got about a million signatures. Hopefully like you say alot will not count and they come up short..

[krabigirl]

168. People are so sick of hearing the fundies cry about this...it won't be overturned again.

[pollo poco]

237. Don't be too sure

In Oregon, it's been a real ping pong match.
One day, you can get married; the next day the fundies get to tell you you can't.

I guess I still don't understand why the US constitutional right to equal protection doesn't trump all.

I think anti gay laws should all be held to the standard of the 14th amendment. Period.

Let the courts try to change the 14th amendment. Reject all bills by voters that don't jibe with it. They are unconstitutional, and should be struck down.

[meegbear]

44. While I am pleased with the ruling, I take umbrage over this statement ...

Standing at the head of the line, San Francisco couple Bruce Ivie and David Bowers said they were waiting for history.

"I just feel it," said Ivie, 51 wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a pink triangle and "Proud Forever" on it. "California has always been a trendsetter. It's now about time."

Sorry Bruce, but Massachusetts, my home fuckin' state, has had same sex marriages since 2003.

[nichomachus]

50. Oh yeah?!

Same sex marriage was the first "trend" that Massachusetts has set since the baked bean. SFO is still a trend-setter.

[meegbear]

61. Fah! The last trend you guys gave us was Crocs

[nichomachus]

67. You guys? I'm from Massachusetts

and, for the record, Crocs are from Colorado.

[meegbear]

70. Fine ... Rice A Roni then ...

Congrats from one Masshole to another! :hi:

[pnwmom]

176. It only confirmed Californians reputation as a bit full of themselves,

sometimes.

Yes, Vermont (whose civil unions were truly groundbreaking) and Massachusetts do deserve the credit.

[nichomachus]

221. Well

I was born and raised in MA and lived there most of my life, went to college in VT, and now live in CA -- so I'm kind of covered on the trend setting thing, I guess.

:hi:

[LeftyMom]

242. CA domestic partnership precedes VA's civil unions, and the first gov't recognitions of same-sex

couples (in the early eighties) were in Berkeley and WeHo.

So yeah, Californians got this whole ball rolling.

[bicentennial_baby]

53. Hellz yes!

:bounce:

[Bolo Boffin]

166. The good people of Massachusetts have been on the front line in the country advancing human rights

since before we were a country.

Fought for them and died for them.

[Betsy Ross]

45. Yipee!

Some good news out of our state!

[XOEnterprises]

46. Yes!

Finally, maybe now the rest of the states will begin to follow suit. This is just fantastic!

[lisa58]

51. Question: Does this mean any couple that got married...

...in 2004 are now legally married?

[reggie the dog]

167. yes, it would seem so

any constitutional lawyers ?????????

[leQ]

52. right before pride fest too. this is great GREAT news. (n/t)

[blayne]

Great news!

:toast:

[Ian David]

54. "... with six judges appointed by Republican governors and one by a Democrat."

The California Supreme Court is considered politically moderate, with six judges appointed by Republican governors and one by a Democrat.
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1451387120080514


Gay marriage legal in California, court declares

[keepCAblue]

117. 3 of the 4 prevailing justices are republicans

Unbelievable....

[ronnykmarshall]

55. I have tears in my eyes.

I've been needing some GOOD news for a change.

[bicentennial_baby]

59. ...

:hug: I'm so happy for you

:)

[ronnykmarshall]

95. and now the question ...

when ?

where ?

what to wear ?

Actually we've already had a wedding. So this one will just be for the legal-beagle part.

Now we have to figure out our last name.

:hug: back at ya

[slackmaster]

100. And the Lovey Howell question...

What does one wear to a same-sex wedding?

[Ellen Forradalom]

256. Ginger and Mary Ann are getting hitched?!?

BAY-BEE!!
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[NorthCarolina]

266. Are you both taking one or the others surname

or will you do a hyphenated combination of both surnames?

[ronnykmarshall]

268. Probably hyphen.

With his name first.

[NorthCarolina]

269. Congrats to you both!

We're in NC so we don't see "marriage equality" coming to a courthouse near us any time soon. We are now weighing the feasibility of tying the knot in CA if they don't limit it to CA residents only.

My "Congrats", in advance, to you both!

[maddezmom]

63. me too!

and for a change their happy tears. :hug:

[Shakespeare]

154. YAY!!!

I'm ecstatic. SO ecstatic. Congratulations to you, and to ALL of us. :bounce: :loveya: :toast:

[closeupready]

57. DAMMIT! Now Obama's going to lose!!!!

:mad: :sarcasm:

[bigscott]

68. I see the sarcasm emoticon but...

this does in fact guarantee that this will be an issue in the GE in November. I trust my GLBT brothers and sisters in the great state of CA will defeat the pending referendum but the Pukes will make this an issue all over again.

peace and love to my big homo bro's in CA :silly:

BigScott

[closeupready]

74. Too effing bad. Obama should have told McClurkin to take a hike.

Instead, he had him headline a concert to benefit his campaign in ... SC, was it?

Anyway, surveys show that diehard fundies continue to hate gays, but everybody else is either supportive or don't know how to feel anymore. This won't hurt Obama much if at all. GOBAMA! :hi:

[pleah]

58. K&R! Good news!

:applause: :applause: :woohoo: :applause: :applause:

[LynneSin]

62. Why can't we just give all these narrow minded people their very own state!

We are not going to change the mind of those who have them shut & sealed closed. I sometimes wish we could give all these right-wing nut jobs their very own 'state' and let them have the country they want in return for letting the rest of us 'live and let live'.

If these narrow-minded people don't want to have gay marriages THEN DON'T DO IT. Why must they be nosy-nellys and worry about what everyone else is going

[nichomachus]

64. Do not rush into a same-sex marriage -- read the fine print

If you are married in MA -- or possibly now in CA -- those marriages are not recognized in other states.

If you are from out of state and marry in one of those two states -- or if you live in MA (or possibly CA) -- and then move to another state, getting a divorce, should that become necessary, is a nightmare.

Your own state won't divorce you, since they don't recognize the marriage. CA or MA won't divorce you unless you establish residency in the state. I don't know about MA, but in CA, you have to live in the state for six months and in the county for three in order to file for divorce.

So, if you marry in CA and then move to Chicago, you would have to move back to CA for at least six months in order to end the marriage.

I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade -- just posting a word of caution.

I'm in a registered domestic partnership in CA -- and the drawbacks are enormous, despite what anyone tells you.


Until same-sex marriage is approved nationally, be very careful of what you do.

[keepCAblue]

120. Bullsh*t

The more ss couples who marry in CA before the November election, the more it will throw our state into a quandary, should the extremists' constitutional amendment pass. To hell with "drawbacks"...this is not the time to worry about how one will file their federal tax return or moving to a red state down the road. This is the time to push the issue and make voters think, in practical terms, about the thousands of already married ss couples, should the constitutional amendment show up on the November ballot -- much as happened in MA in the months following that state's high court decision.

[ronnykmarshall]

125. We're planning to get married 9/22

That is the day we had our wedding in Las Vegas in 2001.

[keepCAblue]

133. We're going to wait the obligatory 30 days...

then we are going to go down to Santa Clara County clerk's office and apply.

My pardner and I were married in San Fran on February 19, 2004. We have been waiting over four years for this decision to right the wrong the CA Supreme Court committed in nullifying ours and over 3,000 other couples' marriages.

It's been a long four years.

[keepCAblue]

136. Thank you, Gavin

It is due to Gavin Newsom's courageous stance back in 2004 that this day has come. Had he not forced the issue by opening the doors to San Fran's city hall to same-sex couples during those magical 30 days in 2004, this historic victory would not be here and now, but likely delayed by years...

My partner and I will be sending flowers to city hall, addressed to our hero, Gavin Newsom, with our thanks and deepest appreciation.

[ronnykmarshall]

138. Gavin looks SO happy!

[reggie the dog]

169. He looks like he could make a great governor

Could Gavin beat Arnie??????

[ronnykmarshall]

184. Arnie will not be running again.

Thank god.

[pink-o]

164. You are absolutely right!

I didn't vote for Gavin bcuz I thought he was a smooth yuppie businessman. Then one month into his first term, he opened City Hall to same-sex couples. It blew me away! I had a bunch of friends who showed up to get married, and they were ecstatic! The lines went around the block, so a few friends and I went to Starbucks, bought loads of coffee and pastry and handed out some breakfasts while the couples waited. They were crying and there was so much hope going around, it brought us all to our knees.

When the marriages were declared null and void a few months later, we took it personal. Easy to empathise when you'd been there and seen the happiness, you knew the pain these couples felt.

I only can imagine how this triumph has energised and brought them hope again!

Don't people GET IT??? Civil rights are HUMAN rights, America is all about ACCEPTING everyone--no one should EVER be disenfranchised or living on the fringe in Amercia. My constitution says it, my elected representatives are there to uphold it. Okay--in a perfect world, but that's an ideal we might all consider working towards.

And this Supreme Court ruling is a GREAT first step!

[ronnykmarshall]

137. I think we'll probably go earlier too.

9/22/01 will always be the aniversary of our marriage. I'm can't wait to make it legal.

[nichomachus]

141. Tell that to the gay couples who are going through hell

right now trying to undo their marriage.

[JerseygirlCT]

146. This is one reason I think the CA ruling is huge (series! lol)

The number of people involved now is much, much bigger. The chances that a suit will now be brought before the US SC is bigger.

Other marriages are recognized through all the other states, due to the "full faith and credit clause" of the Constitution. Why gay marriage should be excluded is beyond me. I imagine the only way this will be finally decided, and all those "DOMA" acts and state constitutional bans will be declared unconstitutional.

Of course, we'll need a new SC before that happens. Can't Alito, Scalia or Thomas be forced into early retirement?

[nichomachus]

152. I was only urging people to be cautious

I wasn't telling anyone not to do it. However, there are drawbacks and people should be aware of them. I used to work in the court processing divorces and some of the most bitter and hardest to adjudicate were same sex divorces -- divorces from domestic partnerships, which have to be processed exactly the same as any other divorce, at least in CA.

If a couple wants to put themselves out there as part of a potential SCOTUS suit somewhere down the road, that's fine with me. But people should know what they're getting into and what the potential drawbacks are.

[JerseygirlCT]

158. I know. And I've seen stories of exactly what you've said

more evidence, of course, why marriage in one state, gay or not, should be universally accepted in the others. But as you say, that's not currently the case, and there are risks for big complications.

I also said to a friend years ago that gay folks should be allowed to marry and have to deal with all the BS that we straight people deal with, lol. I think that was at a time when some accomodations were just beginning to be made - insurance, etc. I thought then, and I still do, that only a perfectly equal system is equal and just. CUs are a means to an end, not an end, IMO.

[customerserviceguy]

226. Dumb question

but if a person in a same-sex marital relationship (be that true marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership) moves to a state that does not recognize one of the above, aren't they pretty much free to ignore the relationship's status back in the state where it was contracted? I mean, what's the downside to not having your same-sex relationship dissolved in the state where it was created, if you're not under the jurisdiction of that state anymore?

Certainly, with heterosexual marriage, one would want to dissolve an old marriage in order to be free to remarry, or file as a single person on one's taxes, but if you move to a red state that just will not recognize the same-sex relationship, what's the worry?

Please understand, I'm not trying to be argumentive, but you seem to have some experience in this area, and I'm just trying to pick your brain here!

[nichomachus]

232. It's not as simple as it sounds

Not all relationships end well and even ones that end well sometimes end up in complications.

Suppose you marry in CA, then move to OH, have a big fuck-you fight with your honey, and you call it quits, walking away without properly ending the marriage.

Under CA law, your not-really-ex is entitled to half of everything you have -- your business, all your earnings, your pensions, etc. (not to mention the $45 million you're going to win in the Powerball), and could file suit in CA to get those. Your ex would get half. The court order granting your ex possession would be recognized in the other states, even though your marriage wasn't.

Or, let's say, you meet someone else and want to get married -- say in MA. As far as CA is concerned, you are a bigamist. At that point, everything gets super complicated -- and trying to untangle an estate in such a circumstance would suck tens of thousands of dollars out of the estate. If you and your new honey bought a house together or opened a business -- and then you died -- your not-really-ex from CA could file suit in CA to get half. He might not win, but it would cost your other honey a bundle.

Straight couples run into this too. A woman I dealt with in a court proceeding, was planning on getting married. While going through old papers, she found a marriage license from Nevada -- and it all came back to her. She was at a party, got drunk, and she and some guy she didn't really know went out and got married. They thought it was cute. It took her many many months and a lot of money to get that marriage annulled. She could have ignored it, but it could have come back to bite her in the ass if she didn't.

You might think -- oh that guy will never track me down -- but you'd be surprised at how often they do. You hit the lottery or come into money some other way. The ex sees the picture on TV, says, "Gee she looks familiar," and digs out his copy of the marriage certificate. Then, it's off to the races.

Marriage is a very serious thing. I don't know how many people said to me "If it was as hard to get married as it is to get divorced, there'd be a lot fewer people getting married." They were absolutely right. Add property or kids to the mix, and it can be a nightmare.

[mulsh]

65. good news, let's defeat the constitutional intitiative if it qualifies

for the november ballot. I'm not even too worried about being able to afford wedding gifts. OMG what am I saying I know at least 6 couples who will be registering at Gumps and Shreve with in the week.

[KAZ]

69. YES!! I wanna REC this to the sky!! Fantastic! So goes Cal....

[N4457S]

73. Not In...

...Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan it doesn't.

[KAZ]

81. It will. The times are changing my friend, and it's going to happen..

.. faster than you think.

[N4457S]

86. Not There...

...my friend. I'm from that area, originally.

It's an older, less well educated and far less affluent part of the country than what's considered normal these days.

You're dealing with a group of people who don't care how much money you have. Kids have been growing up there, leaving for college and never coming back for decades. And no one cares. They don't want change.

Kerry got caught in this maelstrom in 2004, and it might happen again to Obama.

There isn't that much difference among the political cultures of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and even West Virginia. They don't know, they don't care and they despise anyone who looks down upon them for it.

It won't change. Trust me. Why do you think we left?

[KAZ]

110. I know they're older. I hate to be crass, but that generation is dying off.

[N4457S]

159. Very True...

...but they're not gone yet.

That's why I say Hillary next time. It would have been Hillary this time.

Don't you think she knows that? Why do you think she's so pissed off? She thinks Obama stole this from her.

[ronnykmarshall]

200. ...

to hell with it

[swimmernsecretsea]

71. Lookout, conservatives! That pendulum is going to hit you coming back over! nt

[happygoluckytoyou]

75. MARRIAGE IS A BLESSED STATE AND SHOULD ONLY BE ENTERED BY A MAN AND HIS MOTHER

LOL

[Proud Liberal Dem]

76. Terrific News!!!!

Hopefully, as more and more states allow gay marriage and (heterosexual) people in other parts of our country start to realize that gay marriage is not actually "threatening" any (heterosexual) marriages nor leading to attempts by its proponents to legitimize human-animal couplings (or other bizarre arrangements) I believe we will see more and more states gradually rescinding and/or dropping their bigoted and nonsensical "defense of (heterosexual) marriage" laws and initiatives, as well as repealing and replacing separate-and-unequal "civil union" laws with laws granting full marriage equality for GLBT individuals.

[Hannah Bell]

77. Just in time to bring out the disillusioned fundies for the elections.

Interesting how gay marriage always pops up before the presidentials.

If one didn't know better, one might think -

[Reader Rabbit]

78. Yay! Three cheers for love!

:toast: :bounce: :loveya: :applause:

[flvegan]

79. Fantastic fantastic fantastic news!!!!

Biggest Rec I've given in a long time!

[UncleTomsEvilBrother]

83. Aren't their like....

....6 Republican appointed officials on the CASC?

[wryter2000]

80. Awesome news!

[jennied]

82. That's fantastic. :)

[BattyDem]

85. Awesome!

:party: :applause: :bounce: :woohoo: :party: :woohoo: :bounce: :applause: :party:

[Kajsa]

87. This is great news!

And it's long overdue!!
I'm proud to be a Californian, today.
;-)

Thanks for posting this.
:hi:


:applause:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

88. yay!

:party:

[superconnected]

90. 1. Yea!!!, 2. Oh boy the political hate angle of the right wing for this election

again.

[JerseygirlCT]

147. Do you think they've still got the same steam?

I really wonder whether they're still ready to get all het up over this.

Some will, undoubtedly. Focus on the Family, et al are likely singing silent hallelujahs right now, thinking of the fundraising potential.

But do you think the average person is really still all riled up by the issue?

[donheld]

91. This is the best news in years!

[Sunnyshine]

92. Yay for CA and USA!

:loveya: This is awesome news!

[JChan]

219. other than

Other than its only valid in CA ... good luck trying to use the license anywhere else.

[Dukkha]

93. A BIG step forward in civil rights!

This is what it's all about. Not petty squabbling over elections but making real changes that affect real lives. No one should ever be denied their constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[David Zephyr]

94. My Golden State is golden!

Jerry Brown made history way back in the 1970's by decriminalizing homosexuality. It was a watershed event.

Today, our Supreme Court has shown that equal protection under the law is just that.

Very proud of my beloved California this morning!

[suffragette]

96. I love waking up to good news

And this is GREAT news!


:woohoo:

[KamaAina]

97. And another state stands up for equality

I can only think about what might have been had not the Catholic and Mormon churches teamed up to ram through an anti-marriage referendum in Hawai'i some years ago, after a similar court decision here. We could have been the ones exercising national leadership, for once. :(

[asthmaticeog]

98. AWESOME! Right fuckin' on, California!

:thumbsup:

[Cronus Protagonist]

99. That's a mote in teh eyes of the Catholic and Mormon churches

The mormies and cathies are the onest that spent millions of dollars and provided thousands of people to ban gay marriage in the first place. Proposition 22 dies a death today, and it was definitely not too soon.

:headbang:

[tandot]

101. K & R for equal rights.

[NOLALady]

102. This is a blessing!

A great big step in the right direction.

Happy Dance Time!:party: :toast: :applause:

[reggie the dog]

103. Great news

What is that, about 55 million more Americans who live in a state where homosexual and heterosexual people can marry. Great progression for humanity.

[Ohio Joe]

105. Sweet

Congrats California!

[Spazito]

106. Congrats to California!

This is wonderful news! Two states are on the right track, only the beginning of many more to come, I hope. Living in Canada where same-sex marriage is a federally recognized right, I hope the decision by the California Supreme Court reverberates to the other States who have yet to right a wrong.

[varelse]

107. Another win for

human rights and equal protection under the law. :woohoo:

[yardwork]

108. Huge smile!

I'm a person to the state of California!

:loveya:

[raystorm7]

109. Seriously though. CONGRATS to all the Gay peeps in Cali.

[lazyriver]

113. Great step forward!

[rox63]

114. MA welcomes CA to the land of equal marriage

:woohoo: :woohoo:

Note to conservatives - The sky has not fallen here in MA, nor will it fall in CA. And if someone is personally opposed to same-sex marriage, I recommend that they don't have one.

[Naythan]

115. excellent

:grouphug:

[Politicub]

116. I'm overwhelmed!

And I'm filled with joy. Sometimes the news is good, and today is one of those days.

And even kudos to Gov. Schwarzenegger for not piling on to the right's movement for a marriage amendment!

:bounce:

:toast:

:woohoo:

[ronnykmarshall]

187. Arnie's being cool about it

Said he respects the court and will uphold the ruling. AND will not support any constitutional ban either.

[gristy]

224. I was very pleased to see that from Gov. Schwarzenegger

Completely unexpected. His support greatly reduces the strength of any ballot issue in November.

[countryjake]

118. K&R!

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

121. Kay and FREAKIN' ARRRRR

To my GLBT friends and family, I'm delighted, thrilled and can't wait to go to your weddings!

:toast: to the beautiful intersection of love, human dignity and civil rights.

:bounce:


:kick:

[midnight]

122. I'm so glad to hear this. Congratulations to all those who will

benefit from this long over due passage.

[emlev]

126. Link to press release from Natl' Ctr for Lesbian Rights

National Center for Lesbian Rights

[lonestarnot]

127. wow

:wow: :woohoo:

[PatGund]

130. Fantastic News!!

This former Californian (and "breeder") is thrilled by the news. I've felt it was unfair to years that my friends couldn't get married while I could. This is a great step forward.

Now here's hoping the fundies can't get their hatred on the ballot

[Born_A_Truman]

131. Great News!

I'm proud of my state!!

[skygazer]

132. VERY proud of my adopted state today

Big step forward for fairness and equality - I hope the rest of the country soon follows suit. :applause:

[SharonRB]

134. This is great news!

Now that there are two states, I hope it spreads to more.

[xynthee]

135. Best news in a really long time!!!

:woohoo:

[TechBear_Seattle]

139. It's about bloody time!

Now, if only we could get the Washington Supreme Court to reverse their idiotic ruling that our ban on same-sex marriage is valid because... get ready for it....





Same-sex couples cannot have children. As opposed to the tens of thousands of legally married mixed gender couples that cannot or will not have children.

[JerseygirlCT]

142. Such wonderful news! I'm thrilled! nt

[marmar]

143. Kudos to Cali......

..... hopefully equality will become the rule and not the exception everywhere in this country.

[npincus]

145. Congrats to all my gay friends... and all those whom I haven't met!

:)

Welcome to the 3 rings of marriage:

First, the engagement ring.
Next, the wedding ring.
At last, the suffeRING.

:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

148. Great news from my native State

And I do celebrate! But, let us remember that the California Supreme Court is today reversing what was done by the vote of 2/3 of the voters of CA. The Supreme Court did the right thing, but the people of California, they did the wrong thing. That 2/3 of the vote is what we in the Democratsville need to bear in mind. The Supreme Court will not defeat the upcoming measure to amend, and they will not award the electorial votes in November.
So while I am delighted, and even thinking about how nice it can be living in the Old Golden State, I urge everyone to remember that Bush 41 won California. He did. The Gov is now, and during the great majority of my long Californio life has been, a Republican. This is one of the better ones, so remember Pete Wilson and Ronny Reagan and remember November. California must be kept Blue. The fact is that going back to '68, even West Virginia has gone to the Democrat more times than California in Presidential elections. That is the fact that should not be forgotten.
Not that the news is not just what I wanted and hoped for! It is great and that should not be forgotten either.

[JBoy]

150. Congratulations California! We've had marriage equality across Canada since 2005, and I can testify

that my 23-year long heterosexual marriage hasn't been devalued, or fallen apart, or whatever the fuck was supposed to happen to it.

Good luck in November.

[shadowknows69]

153. Great news for California and hopefully some day the nation

[libnnc]

155. Fantastic!

:bounce: :applause: :party: :headbang: :woohoo:

[MissMillie]

156. OK, besides the Freepers going ballistic, I found this

and it goes without saying that this one really doesn't "get it"


***************************************************************************

To: NinoFan
Californians are going to regret this deeply when a huge percentage of their budget starts going for AIDS care and treatment.



133 posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:04:07 PM by TomBeddingfield
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse>

**************************************************************************

Yeah, because allowing homosexuals to marry somehow makes them more prone to unprotected sex with a whole bunch of other people....

:wtf:

[closeupready]

170. This actually made me laugh. AIDS is precisely one reason why people should SUPPORT gay marriage.

Because as Al Gore stated in his video testament (in support of gay marriage), affirming relationships between committed partners encourages stability, i.e., reduces promiscuity and the risk of STD's.

But of course, in Freeperland, people can turn their hormones on and off like a light switch, and when someone is unpartnered, they need not NEED anyone else if they don't WANT to need anyone else. :crazy: :eyes: (I guess because we aren't really people at all - we are robots or zombies or something like that.)

[Seabiscuit]

190. That's just PRECIOUS!

:rofl:

[ronnykmarshall]

202. I'd love to meet one of those dumb fucks face to face.

Just to laugh in it.

[KSinTX]

162. Next stop, DOMA

Federalized discrimination ain't right either.

[jeff30997]

177. I had to Google to find out what was the meaning of DOMA...

(I'm French Canadian so...)

Well,I was a bit surprised:

DOMA:

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the commonly-used name of a federal law of the United States that is officially known as Pub. L. No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996) and codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects.

1-No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

2-The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.


Forgive my ignorance but I thought that the Federal Government couldn't impose something like this.

Signed by President Bill Clinton?

Was he forced to sign this because it was passed by Congress and the House ?

If not then uncle Bill is down another notch in my book.

[KSinTX]

185. As usual, in Clintonian terms, he was for DOMA before he was against it

In his own words:

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html

Oh, and Presidents always have at the ready a magic pen marked "VETO." Given the numbers, it would have been overridden, but he supported it and could have acted otherwise.

[jeff30997]

192. I see.

Sorry Bill:Flush!!!:hurts:

[sofa king]

208. It was an election year--a close one.

Clinton never won by a majority of votes, and as usual Newt Gingrich was sending up a wedge issue to motivate the knuckle-draggers.

Clinton could have vetoed it, but it would have been overridden and held against him and used to demonstrate that he was powerless. Instead, he went along with it and put the issue to bed so that it couldn't be used as the exact same sort of bullshit was used to gain control of Congress and the White House in 2004.

Yeah, it really sucks, but there was a political reality behind it, and one might even argue it bought us four years of peace and prosperity.

[KSinTX]

215. I'll give him political reality on *Don't Ask, Don't Tell*

And even consider his ability to parse the legal distinctions as pure genious. That was a political move that did exactly what you've described above - shut down the discussion on the issue. The second I'll take you (given your HRC avatar) at your own word. Personally, for the benefit of four more years, you traded off for "peace and prosperity." In any good tradeoff, both sides benefit. What did yours get?

DISCLAIMER: No snark intended or implied is contained in this message. Honest question.

[TechBear_Seattle]

193. Yup, signed by President Bill Clinton

And how could a President be forced to sign a bill? He could have vetoed it; even if the veto got overriden, he still would have vetoed it. Instead, he signed it as secretly as was possible: late on a Friday night with no witnesses and certainly no media.

And trust me, you do not want to get me started on his failure to veto "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

No matter his good points, I will hate Clinton for this for the rest of my life. And yes, I'm fully aware that "hate" is a very strong word. But it is the only word that fits my very strong emotions on the subject.

[Barrymores Ghost]

171. CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP!!!!!

:applause:

[That Is Quite Enough]

174. This made my week.

Congratulations to all the gay couples in Cali. :D

[chknltl]

178. 100th rec! Good on you citizens of California! Good on you.

The pendulum is swinging back to the left, common sense and compassion for our fellow souls who share the ride with us on this planet is returning, WE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA ARE TAKING BACK OUR COUNTRY! This is a great sign indeed....good on you citizens of California, good on you.
:grouphug:

[pinto]

179. Yeah!

Score a legal victory for Human Rights!

:thumbsup:

[cui bono]

181. Go California!!! Just donated $50 to the campaign to make this stick.

http://www.hrc.org/

[jeff30997]

182. Great news!

Bravo Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis! :toast:

[John Kerry VonErich]

183. A double edged sword

This is IMO a reversed 2000 Gore. It took a court to decide democracy, this is no different. And this was a democraticly elected messure but it took a court to reverse it. I do believe in legalize gay marrage, but I don't like the idea of judges to decide in the same way as judges decided the 2000 election.

[FreeState]

191. Its called Checks and Balances - civics 101 - dont fall for the right wing talking points

that courts have no say in anything - they do and with good reason.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html

[John Kerry VonErich]

259. If thats the case....

then if the repugs try to steal another presidential election with using the courts, I don't wanna hear it. I just don't wanna see any hypocracy. IMO

[Creideiki]

223. Except

It passed the California legislature 2 times and the Governator vetoed it 2 times because he felt it should be for the courts to decide.

"Proposition 22 was intended to prevent California from recognizing gay marriages performed in other states or countries.

In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said voters and the state Supreme Court should decide the issue. The high court is likely to rule next year on whether California's ban on gay marriages violates the constitution."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071012-1903-ca-gaymarriage.html

[DutchLiberal]

186. It's sad that part of the population is still treated like second rate citizens...

I'm glad with this decision, but I'm not in a cheerful mood, since California is the exception to the rule. And it's sad we have to 'celebrate' this as a 'victory', when it should be the most normal thing that gays have the same rights as straight people. Also, I read this in the article:

"California voters already had approved by a wide margin a measure in 2000 that declared marriage to be only between a man and a woman."

I thought California was supposed to be the 'raving liberal' part of your country?

Well, ok, I'm going to cheer anyway... :P

:bounce:

[Seabiscuit]

189. Take THAT you fundie freeper TARDS! Judiciary to homophobes:

[juno jones]

194. It is a fucking beautiful day!

Congratulations to all on this triumph of human rights, especially those who are aimin' to get hitched...:)!!!!!!

[nam78_two]

195. V. cool

:) K&R

[keepCAblue]

197. Flowers for Gavin

Here are the flowers my partner and I are sending to Mayor Newsom and his dedicated staff at SF city hall. The flowers convey exactly how I'm feeling today: Happy, happy, happy!!!



Message on card:

With deepest appreciation to Mayor Newsom and his dedicated staff for making this historic day possible. Thank you for your courage, commitment and sacrifice in leading the charge and championing the cause for marriage equality. You are our heroes. We won!

Sincerely,

D. and N.
Married at San Francisco City Hall February 19, 2004.

[mike_c]

198. this is wonderful news....

Damn, this is good news! :bounce:

[Pale Blue Dot]

199. Good. A victory for common sense over immoral religious dogma.

:woohoo:

[Towlie]

201. But look at the big picture! This could work against us.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the following statement today regarding the state Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

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

In spite of Governor Arnold there very well could be a constitutional amendment on the California ballot this fall, and it could draw out the neo-cons in record numbers to vote for it. And of course those people would also vote for McCain while they're at it. Without this issue, those same voters might stay home instead.

[NorthernSpy]

204. all the more reason to campaign hard for Obama...

The new voters he's brought into the party can quash such a move by the right.


But only if we work hard and get everyone to the polls.

[nealmhughes]

203. It is snowing at my house in mid-May in Alabama right now!

Next step: "full faith and credit" clause challenge in the USSC. It either exists across the board or it doesn't.

[Joey Liberal]

205. Will this lead to all republicans getting divorced?

After all, they have always claimed that gay marriage affects their marriages:)........

[trashcanistanista]

206. Listen up out of Cali gay peeps:

I am extending a big invitation to all of you to come and live in our beautiful state, specifically Northern Cal, specifically my county, Placer, because we need more Dems! You can have a storybook wedding, the scenery is spectacular and due to foreclosures, housing is literally a steal. Please, move here and help us out. Now that this is no longer and election issue we should have a cake walk to turning the entire state blue. But we NEED more DEMS! California Rocks!!!!!!

[CabalPowered]

207. That is great news

:bounce:

and to CA SC..

:applause:

[customerserviceguy]

213. Congratulations to all of my Golden State brothers and sisters!!

Tonight, a California Cabernet with dinner to celebrate!

[msongs]

214. Obama uses his bible to justify denying gay marriage rights. he must be unhappy today nt

[nichomachus]

222. I don't care what people say

as much as what they do. The Clintons talk a big talk on gay rights and gave us two disasters -- Don't Ask Don't Tell and Defense of Marriage.

Talk is cheap.

[pollo poco]

238. In space no one can hear you scream

All of our top dems are too busy falling all over their bibles to come down on the side of human rights.
Why don't my straight brothers and sisters hold their feet to the fire? I really wonder.
Progressives are usually so particular about human rights. Why not this?
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Foolish bronze age superstitions have no place in government.
Why do we tolerate it?

(edit: 1st line: inserted the word- too)

[Nevernose]

248. You answered your own question.

Why don't your straight brothers and sisters hold their feet to the fire? Because many of them are still clinging to foolish bronze age superstitions.

Those that aren't superstitious are too afraid of being called gay themselves and thus committing social suicide (What do you call that? Coming out of someone else's closet?).

Take me, for instance. My friends and family all know where I stand on the issue, and some of them still give me shit about it (not that I really care). Apparently, anyone who cares enough about gay rights to actually say out loud "I think that gay people should have the same rights as me" is SECRETLY gay. Maybe it's different among women, too, since every man I know including myself are essentially 15 year olds trapped in grown men's bodies.

I couldn't ever say anything to most of the people at work. I'm a high school teacher, and if a student, administrator, or many in the faculty found out that I had the temerity to think that homosexuals are human and had actually said so, I'd be fired by the end of the day, damn the union and screw the contract.

[FourScore]

218. As it should be!!!!

Thank you California!!!

[Jefferson23]

227. Justice at last!

I am thrilled for America today, despite the nasty nay sayers on the right..this is a ruling of fairness!

[Seabiscuit]

229. Supreme Court Ruling - Law of the land. Well done Supreme Court.

Its about time. :-)

[AnnieBW]

236. WOOHOO!!!

A big congrats to all of the GLBT people in California! Now you can suffer along with us straights! :evilgrin: :grouphug:

[ms liberty]

239. Excellent news. K&R n/t

[proud patriot]

240. Woo Hoo

:woohoo:

[debbierlus]

241. A hearty congratulations to all those who fought the long battle!!!!

HOORAY!!!!!

I am thrilled.

What a victory!!!! Wonderful!

May all you brides and grooms be walking down the aisle whenever YOU wish!!!!

:toast:

[aaronbees]

243. Awesome!

Great news! :woohoo:

[Downtown Hound]

244. I wasn't expecting this, but GREAT NEWS!

I was expecting the court to be a bunch of ignorant cretins and uphold the ban. How happy I am that I was wrong. I only hope that my fellow Californians that voted for that shameful ban back in 2000 have learned a little something about human rights. This had better not be overturned again.

[Jakes Progress]

245. Why is there always a but...?

This is a seriously good thing, a true reason to celebrate....but

in all the excitement, let's remember we are talking about republican judges. Maybe because I live in a state under permanent republican siege, but I have to wonder: Why now? It is beyond imagination that the republicans wanted this to be an issue for Clinton and Obama to comment on? If two thirds of California voted for the stupid proposition, how many of those will alter their voting presidential voting pattern because of it? Hispanic Catholics and semi-evangelical African Americans - two reliable Democratic voting blocs - may just let the republicans use this as a wedge issue. Sure, I'm capable of displaying more than a little cynicism, but this issue worked really well for the republicans last time. If wild and crazy California voted two thirds for this kind of crap, what about the South and the Mid-West? I think there is some serious discussions about nuanced statements going on all night at the Obama and the Clinton headquarters. This wouldn't be the first time that fear and hatred have been used as effective republican weapons.

If you are a gay or lesbian in California, get married while you can. If you love someone who is Gay or Lesbian, be happy for them. Hell, even we straights should celebrate justice. But let's get ready for some really nasty politics.

[fortyfeetunder]

246. A toast to future weddings!

:toast:

Great news!

[SunDrop23]

247. HOORAY!!!

[JI7]

249. YAYYYYYYYYYYY

[trickyguy]

250. Only 48 states to go and then maybe we will become a nation

that honors gay/lesbian/human rights. I hope I live to see that day.

[goclark]

252. Great news!

Much Love and Happiness to all! :hug:

[jonmiller74]

253. Great News but...

now I have even more pressure to find a boyfriend.

[LaStrega]

255. It's about freakin' time k&r n/t

[Q3JR4]

258. Wooohooo!

:woohoo: :applause: :party: :headbang: :woohoo: :applause: :party: :headbang: :headbang: :party: :applause: :woohoo: :headbang: :party: :applause: :woohoo:

[Q3JR4]

260. Re: Proposition 22 and 2/3 California voters.

You all have to remember that Prop 22 was passed in 2000, that was 8 years ago. That's not to say that a majority of voters wouldn't support amending the constitution today.

I would say that, given enough time, the probability of a constitutional amendment passing in an election would drop as people see gay married couples mowing their lawns, buying their houses, and going about their daily lives. The only thing necessary for this particular method to work is time for people to get comfortable with the "ickyness" of something new. If the fundies are able to get the number of signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot, the amount of time we have for voter education will be reduced and we'd have to depend on other information for figuring our odds.

Based on information I found online, ¹ the number of people who approved of same sex marriage went from 28% in 1993 to 42% in 2003. Who knows what people currently think about the whole thing; I'd expect, however, that we'll find out soon enough. If enough money is pumped into the state--and we'd be dumb NOT to put money into the state--I'd think our chances in the next election aren't bad. According to the state constitution we'd only need a majority of voters to agree not to amend the constitution. I'd decline to put a number on our chances, but I'd say that the whole issue is going to be a wash until the election (assuming that the initiative makes it onto the ballot).

In case that dark day actually occurs, what do you all think about going to California to campaign?

Q3JR4.
The preceding statement was not approved by any electoral commission or anyone who may actually know what they're talking about.

[truebluecollar]

261. Why does this always have to happen during an election year?

Sure, hip-hip hooray for the Gays and all that jazz, but this issue feeds the whack-job right-wing Republican douche-bag beast one huge chunk of raw red meat. It's going to make them go apeshit and the bastards are only happy when they are apeshit. Don't think that Karl Rove isn't high-fiving Tony Perkins and James Dobson right about now and sending out kudos to the Republican dominated CA SC for rejuvenating and re-energising their flagging fortunes.

[RandomKoolzip]

262. Sweet! Right on, California!

This makes me so happy. :patriot:

[MsUnderstood]

263. So what does this mean california

I live in a VERY conservative part of California (our local celebre-mayor made a nice lil statement condemning the California Supreme Court) and all news sources keep talking about the upcoming November ballot inferring that an initiative for constitutional ban against gay marriage exists on the ballot).

But lets be positive--gays will marry in California, the California constitution will not be amended, and in 30 days I've got to go buy a ring and propose to my partner of 15 years (gives me goosebumps!).

Here is why I believe:

1) Arnold doesn't want to fight this one.
2) The constitutional amendment push is to ELIMINATE domestic partnership benefits completely (which will not fly in California even in the heat of the screaming SAVE OUR CHILDREN)
3) The attempt to add a constitutional amendment to the ballot FAILED on 5/2/08!
(see link http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j_050208.htm#failed)
4) That means conservatives have to try again to get a measure on the ballot by November. The rules are they must qualify it 131 days before th official election day. They have until 7/3/08 to write the petition, submit it for approval, circulate it for signatures and get it back to the state for inclusion on the ballot. . .I don't see it happening!

Congratulations my friends! Gays have won.

And don't worry any of you who think this will force the neo-cons out en-masse in November, I'll schedule my honeymoon so it doesn't interfere with your election.

[me b zola]

271. Congrats to everyone!

:toast:

[montanto]

272. That's the best news in a long time!!

[Perry Mason]

273. One can only assume...

One can only assume that all of those Californians who voted for a ban on same sex marriage have never been divorced and never participated in sex outside wedlock. They similarly must not allow their women to speak in church or cut their hair, as all of these were condemned by the Apostle Paul in the same breath as the homosexuals.

Otherwise they would be a lot of judgmental hypocrites, wouldn't they?

[ronnykmarshall]

274. Ya think?

Oh my god. I was online in a board from KNBC and some of the people were complete "morans".

This one woman from OC and I went at it!!

She said to me "I know you hate me". I told her "No, I hate ignorance and people THAT hate."

[RexDart]

275. Only one downside that I can think of.

I just ran through the list of people that my wife and I know that have been in commited, long term relationships, and the horror hit me...

In about 3 weeks, I'm going to get a rash of "save the date" cards. Then I'm going to have to get my nice suit to the cleaners. Then deal with registries. Then I'm going to have to sit through those weddings and I'll end up crying, 'cause I always do.

Damn you California Supreme Court!

actually, it's all good.

[Ellen Forradalom]

277. The indigestion from all the food, too

And the budget impact of gifts.

Oh, the horror indeed
:D

[Arugula Latte]

276. Great news! Yay, California and especially yay to my old town, San Francisco!

:toast:

[keepCAblue]

278. Today's Ellen show: Ellen proposes to Portia

Before a live audience, Ellen announced her plans to wed her partner of four years, Portia de Rossi. The audience spontaneously erupted in thunderous applause and gave Ellen a standing ovation. Episode will air today...

http://tv.yahoo.com/show/35584/news/urn:newsml:tv.eonline.com:20080516:75f1bc3b6bd3_479f_bd43_de7c9db7308b__ER

[keepCAblue]

279. Rally in San Jose yesterday:

Was a great rally attended by several city and county leaders, both gay and straight. Several wonderful speeches, including the county clerk who already had an appropriately modified marriage application ready to hand out to couples...

http://video.mercurynews.com/mms/rt/1/site/medianewsgroup-bang-mercurynews-pub01-live/current/launch.html?maven_playerId=mercurynewsvideomc&maven_referralPlaylistId=2702c907691535a6f106bf50a4e68dda7d6d763f&maven_referralObject=f75bf6e9-1778-4e7b-8f76-a7e9e3b172c3

[keepCAblue]

281. Mark Morford: Court approves evil gay agenda

Oh, I love Morford (SF Chronicle columnist). Funny, funny, funny. Read the whole article - it's worth it. Link below:

*****************************

Court approves evil gay agenda
Satan's plan to make uptight straight people "really uncomfortable" working out "fabulously," say Bay Area gays

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, May 16, 2008


We are all going to die. Very, very soon. Did you know?

Apparently, the signs are all in place and the plague is clearly nigh and Armageddon is fast upon us because, oh my angry heterosexual god, the announcement has now been handed down: Couples who deeply love one another may now get married in California. It's true.

Wait, there's more. The couple in question might both have penises. Or they both might not. This is the crazy, terrifying new thing: It is totally up to them. Can you imagine?

Put another way: If you are a loving couple in this fine and baffled state, your particular combination of genitalia has officially been deemed irrelevant as far as whether or not you may hold a lovely little ceremony and enjoy a year or three of wedded bliss and buy a tiny condo you can't really afford, and then fight about money and who gets to name the dog as you lose that once-omnipotent romantic spark and rarely have sex anymore and eat your meals in silence as half of you get divorced in about 5.3 years and end up back on the dating scene, wondering whatever happened to your dreams. You know, just like everyone else!

More --> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/05/16/notes051608.DTL

[Orsino]

284. One giant leap for Kollyfornia!

:yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock: :yourock:

[and-justice-for-all]

287. Rock On!!!