CA marriage decision is HISTORIC - specifically REJECTS "separate but equal"

[Maven]

and in that sense is more significant than even the Massachusetts Goodridge decision!

...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.a

* * *

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the
constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the
language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a
man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and
that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the
designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In
addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by
section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the
constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

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

A high Court finally declared, EXPLICITLY, that "separate but equal" in unconstitutional! THIS IS AN HISTORIC DECISION!

:woohoo:

[helderheid]

1. Couldn't be more thrilled! I'm popping open champagne tonight!

:party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party: :woohoo::party:

[BlooInBloo]

2. Yup.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I got goose bumps reading the ruling

This is, indeed, historic.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Just in time to become a big wedge issue in November, just like 2004.

[bicentennial_baby]

6. -1

:thumbsdown:

[SoonerPride]

10. I'm afraid you're right

this might energize the haters on the right

[The_Casual_Observer]

12. They could have done this back in 2005,6,7. This will carry into

the fall. Why now?

[Maven]

13. Oh, I'm sorry our stupid RIGHTS weren't timed perfectly for *your* election

:eyes:

[SoonerPride]

14. I'm a gay male in a relationship for 24 years in OKLAHOMA

I'd love nothing more than thisto be a ntionwide Supreme Court decision, but I fear this may be a rallying cry in a year when the right has little hope of mustering much of a chalenge to the Democratic wave sweepign the country.

[sniffa]

20. Why not stand and fight then?

Dems don't have to wimpy, and they don't have to let the bad guys frame the discussion.

[SoonerPride]

33. Oh I agree. But I also fear anything fucking up our momentum now.

We probably shouldn't look this gift horse in the mouth trying to find things to worry about and just celebrate this victory!

Hooray!

I just wsh it was the SUPREME COURT

[Maven]

24. Hate will *always* be their rallying cry.

They will seek US out when they need to to muster hate and get more power. We have few victories to celebrate, so we must seize on them wherever and whenever we can. This is a GOOD THING! And the political backlash is always exaggerated by the weak-kneed.

[SoonerPride]

34. True that,

We shall overcome

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. Good luck.

[jgraz]

21. Cool. I'm sure you won't mind remaining second-class citizens for a few more years

As a consolation, you'll have the temporary gratitude of all us spineless straight Dems. Until the next election.

[ZinZen]

66. I am very happy our CA courts

FINALLY did the right thing.

[anigbrowl]

28. Wrong. it has taken this long to get the matter to the California SC

It will likely be an issue on California ballots in November anyway, as there is a movement to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to define marriage as heterosexual. This was already taking place before today's court ruling.

So as November approaches, I'll be asking California to support Obama *and* gay marriage.

[nebula]

44. It won't be much of an issue for them in the GE

if Obama comes out against this ruling, which he probably would.

[newmajority]

47. No he probably wouldn't

Obama has said the issue should be left up to the states. And the California state court has decided, as other state courts have.

[nebula]

48. Ok, that works just as well

[jgraz]

11. Yep. Those uppity gays. Better they should stay in the closet.

Oh noes! Teh fundies scare me... :scared:

[sniffa]

18. I'll tell you right now, knock that shit off

You will not be welcome here if you scapegoat the GLBT community.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1324374

[Marrah_G]

27. If not now then WHEN?

There will never be the perfect time.

All Americans are entitled to EQUAL rights......... TODAY, not tomorrow, not next year, not when it is convenient, but RIGHT NOW. TODAY.

[jgraz]

40. Seriously. If we can't win this election AND respect basic human rights, we should just hang it up

[SoonerPride]

41. That's more like it.

This is monumental day and should be celebrated by all thinking and feeling people.

[dbackjon]

39. I'm sorry. I guess us uppity gays should pick a better time to demand equal rights

Fuck you very much.

[jgraz]

43. Next you'll be wanting to eat in the same restaurants and use the straights-only bathrooms

Sheesh, is there no limit to the demands of you people?

[redqueen]

42. "Or this time...

we can build on the movement we started in this campaign, a movement that’s united Democrats, independents, Republicans, young, old, rich, poor, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, because one thing I know, from traveling 46 states this campaign season, is that we are not as divided as our politics suggest."

It's PAST time to stand up for what we believe in, and drop that fucking calculus of division.

[Spangle]

45. What ever the time, it would have effect something.

Such is life.

But I don't think it will have as big an impact anymore. Accept with the groups who all ready believe if you vote Demo,your going to hell for being a baby killer.

A lot more people are getting tired of this 'group' whining about gays damaging straight marriages, etc. I'm serious! Such comments are seen as a JOKE that only a nut would believe.

I've even heard people complain about the taxes wasted dealing with this issue. Point that out to a republican. <wink>

Times are changing. People have had time to think about this and with REAL information about gay families and why they need this.

[JackBeck]

56. You mean how we lost New Jersey to the Repugs after that Supreme Court decision?

[Warren DeMontague]

57. IT IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT TIME TO DO THE RIGHT FUCKING THING.

IT IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT TIME FOR EQUAL RIGHTS.

If it's more important for people to vote against their gay neighbors being able to get married-with-an-m than it is for them to have health coverage or for kids to stop dying in an idiotic war in Iraq or for the economy to get out of the ditch or the fucking PLANET to stop overheating, then you know what?

FUCK 'EM.

The California Supreme Court did the RIGHT THING.

BRAVO.

[BlooInBloo]

60. It's sad how many DUers don't agree.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. They've bought into this bullshit about the "all powerful values voter", I suspect, and they cower

in fear of said mythical beast.

Truth is, the majority of Americans are pro-choice, the majority of Americans don't think we should be spending $40 Billion a year to try to keep Willie Nelson from smoking pot, and if a majority of Americans aren't ready to deal with gay people getting "married", they will be soon- and even now stopping it sure as shit isn't a front burner issue for 'em.

But none of that has any bearing on whether or not this is the right thing to do; clearly it is. I read that the woman who fought Virginia in the courts after facing a year in prison for interracial marriage in 1959 just passed away.

Sad that some still don't get the simple fact that discrimination is ALWAYS wrong.

[Marrah_G]

5. This is how it was won in Mass, no?

[bicentennial_baby]

9. Oui

:D

[Marrah_G]

17. I figured it would not be long until CA or VT caught up with us.

One state at a time.

Someday our grandchildren will look back on this in the same way we look back on the previous Civil Rights Movements, and wonder how people could have ever been so backwards.

At least I hope that is what they think.

[jgraz]

7. This. Is. HUGH!!!

Woohoo!! My state rocks!!!

[newmajority]

8. Will Herr Gropenator be pressured to fight this decision?

He is on record as saying that "gay marriage should be between a man and a woman", after all.

[Maven]

15. He can't. This decision invalidates the measure he was falling back on to oppose it

[graycem]

35. He's saying

he will uphold the court's decision and oppose any measure to change the constitution. I think that's pretty positive, especially from a Republican like him.

[myrna minx]

19. Fantastic.

California is leading the way for the rest of the country. :woohoo:

[DevonRex]

22. Fantastic!!!! nt

[bicentennial_baby]

23. Does this have any retroactive effect on the marriages Newsom performed?

Iirc, one of our own DUers, JackBeck and his husband were one of those couples. Just curious.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. US Law is not retroactive

but I am sure the justices of the peace will now re-perform them weddings, no problem

Of course the no retroactive part is something george is having trouble with

[Maven]

29. That's a good question. I have to read the decision more carefully and I'll get back to you

:bounce:

[bicentennial_baby]

31. Thanks buddy

:hug: I'm so happy today

[Maven]

54. In answer to your question

it appears that the marriage licenses issued prior to this decision were already declared void and of no legal effect by the Supreme Court since the Court held that the constitutionality of the then-current marriage laws had not been properly challenged thus the city exceeded its authority by issuing licenses in violation of the current laws. So it looks like the people who received those licenses will have to apply for new licenses to be married.

This decision is MONUMENTAL from a legal perspective, not just because it declares that same-sex couples are entitled to marriage and nothing less, but because in its reasoning the Court declares that sexual orientation, like gender, race, and religion, is a protected category and that any discrimination on the basis of orientation is treated as a "suspect classification" (i.e., presumptively unconstitutional). In other words, laws that discriminate on the basis of orientation receive the same high level of scutiny as laws that discriminate based on race and gender. On top of that, the Court acknowledges the impact that discriminatory marriage laws have on the social status of gays and lesbians:

...because of the
widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the
more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of
marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed
relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex
couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex
couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex
couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now
emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples
are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated
differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex
couples.

This is an amazing decision!

:bounce:

[JackBeck]

61. Yes, we were.

And thanks for thinking of us! I just got home from a training and am overjoyed at the good news.

Boy did we luck out that day. We got married at 10:30am, rushed to the airport to catch our plane, and by the time we landed in NYC, the State had put a hold on any more same-sex marriages!

:hug:

[grantcart]

Great proud to be a Californian

[grantcart]

25. Great proud to be a Californian

[Warren DeMontague]

65. I'll second that.

:patriot:

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. I expect this to go to the USSC

SOON

Oh and we'd better open our arms for our new brand of visitor, aka Fred Phelps and his boys :sarcasm:

[newmajority]

49. Not TOO soon!

It's inevitable that the Supreme Court will rule on the issue of gay marriage. But it's probably best that the current lineup of the Court isn't the one making the call.

Let Obama appoint some judges first.

[FreeState]

59. It wont - its a states issue - they ruled the states Prop 22 was against the states constitution n/t

[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!

[newmajority]

51. Why so angry, Grovelbot?

Don't you realize that this is good news for you and your partner, C3PO :evilgrin:

[Withywindle]

55. DUzy!!!! n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Damn.

Beat me to it.

[unblock]

36. wow. just. wow.

[KAZ]

37. Finally! What a freaking wonderful day!!!

[xchrom]

38. recommend!

[Freddie Stubbs]

46. The problem is that they didn't find a ban on gay marriage to be in violation of the US Constitution

They found it in violation of the CA State Constitution. There is a likely to be a referendum in November to change the state constitution. Even if the CA courts find that change to the CA constitution to be in violation of the US Constitution, the ruling could be overturned by the Federal Courts.

There is going to be a similar ballot question here in Florida, but it is not likely to pass, as a 3/5 majority is needed, as opposed to a simple majority in CA.

[Maven]

50. Well, that's entirely appropriate

Marriage is state law, hence the final word on CA state law comes from the California Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. The only time the Supreme Court would come into play is if a claim was brought under federal law (or the US Constitution). Bringing a federal equal protection claim under the U.S. Constitution (as was the case in Loving v. Virginia) is arguably the next step somewhere down the road, but it's premature at this point. More likely, the residents of a discriminating state will sue in federal court to have their MA (or now, CA) marriage recognized under full faith and credit. This is where the validity (or repeal) of DOMA comes in, since that kind of lawsuit is exactly what DOMA was designed to stop.

As for a change to the CA constitution, the CA Supreme Court again has the final word. The US Supreme Court has no say unless a measure in the state constitution is challenged on the basis of federal law.

[terrya]

52. Kick and recommended

[FedoraLV]

53. This is *wonderful*! /nt

[JackBeck]

62. Thank you for translating the legalese.

I started scanning the ruling for fear my eyes would roll back into my head.

K & R !!

[SoonerPride]

63. kick