They've heard our case

[cboy4]

SAN FRANCISCO – Attorneys for same-sex couples presented arguments to the California Supreme Court today in a historic lawsuit seeking to strike down a state law that bars lesbians and gay men from marriage. :bounce:

More of press release----------> http://www.eqca.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=9oINKWMCF&b=40337&ct=5084035

If you did not watch the broadcast, an archive will be available online at www.calchannel.com.

===================================================================

update letter --

Dear Michael,

I am writing to you from the California Supreme Court, where I just had the privilege and honor of witnessing history in the making.

For the past three hours, the highest court in the most populous state in the nation engaged in a spirited discussion. Our lawyers debated with those who oppose our equality about whether we should or should not be afforded the same rights, obligations and dignity that heterosexual individuals have.

Equality California, and each of you as our members, was brilliantly represented by Shannon Price Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. I cannot put in words how fortunate we are to have such amazing legal counsel, including attorneys from NCLR, ACLU, Lambda Legal, Heller Ehrman, LLC and the Law Office of David Codell. Shannon argued passionately and persuasively, as did Therese Stewart with the City of San Francisco and the other attorneys representing our community.

Shannon and Therese eloquently made the case that domestic partnership is not equal to marriage and does not conform to the California Constitution's mandate of equality.

The State tried to argue that this inferior, separate and unequal status is somehow sufficient, that providing us with less-than equality was somehow actually equality, and that discrimination could be justified by tradition. Then, the right wing, anti-LGBT organizations did their usual hateful and mean-spirited song and dance, arguing against all evidence that we are inferior parents and should be denied our rights. Shannon and Terry did a terrific job rebutting the arguments of the State of California and the right-wing groups.:)

If you did not watch the broadcast, an archive will be available online at www.calchannel.com.

The core of this case is about whether we, as LGBT individuals, should be allowed to marry the person we choose, or whether the government gets to make that decision for us. It is about whether we will finally be afforded true equality under California law.

For the past 10 years, EQCA has worked tirelessly to advance our rights to the place they are today. Sometime in the next 90 days, the California Supreme Court will determine whether we are entitled to true equality and whether we will each have the freedom to marry the person we love.

Based on the arguments made today in court, I am very hopeful for a joyful summer.

Warmly,


Geoff Kors
Executive Director
Equality California

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. If the ruling goes against equality, please consider this

In 2006, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that there was a "legitimate state interest" in reserving marriage exclusively for the benefit of those couples able to have children and that since same-sex couples could not have children together, it was constitutionally acceptable for the state legislature to prohibit same-sex couples from being married.

My response was Initiative 957.

Depending on how the California Court rules, this might be a viable option. I mean, if there is a legitimate state interest in reserving marriage for the purpose of having and raising children, there must certainly be a legitimate state interest in reserving marriage ONLY for the purpose of having and raising children. :evilgrin:

[Warpy]

2. Right you are, the "having children" stipulation is stupid on a

lot of levels. For one, not every heterosexual couple has children. Some (gasp!) don't want any. It misunderstands what marriage is at its heart: the promotion of a non blood related person into the position of first degree relative. The presence or absence of children is irrelevant.

For another, a lot of gay and lesbian folks who want to marry have come out of heterosexual marriages and have children; in addition, many lesbian couples are using artificial insemination to become parents. One would think that raising children within the stability that marriage confers would be preferable to raising them outside it.

The only problem is that a lot of people don't want to be inconvenienced by changing their minds about what marriage is and about who can get married. They just don't want to see the announcements in the paper. They hate change of any kind, even change whose time has come and is for the better.

The main thing on your side is time. Gay and lesbian couples have been married in a few states for a few years now, and straight marriage is as dismal as it's always been. Everyone who isn't a total idiot is getting used to the idea. They may have to be dragged kicking and screaming for a while, but it will happen eventually.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. "A few states?" Massachusetts and where else?

Keep in mind: Domestic partnerships, civil unions and other forms of Jim Crow marriage do not count.

[Warpy]

4. Sure they do

Anything that accomplishes the purpose I stated above does the trick. Access to the body of civil law governing a family relationship between two unrelated adults is what is important. The fundies can call it whatever they want to. We all know what it really is.

BTW, did you know straight couples in Canada are opting for civil unions? Marriage has some very unattractive baggage you might want to investigate.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. No, they do not

Fake marriage is, by definition, FAKE marriage. DPs and CUs give very few of the hundreds of rights, responsibilities, protections and priviledges granted by marriage under state law and absolutely none of hundreds of rights, responsibilities, protections and priviledges granted by federal statute or court precedent at any level.

Or do you mean to say that "whites only" drinking fountains and lunch counters were actually a step towards racial equality?

[tavalon]

15. That was you!

Wow, that was great. You had me and mine rolling on that one - it so showed the stupidity of what our Lege passed. I'm so sorry you didn't get more signatures. They so needed to be slapped for that one.

One that really, really, really gets me is that ANY marriage flies in the face of the separation of church and state. I want the state out of the marrying business, period. The state is welcome to set up any number of legal agreements between people regarding financial ventures, child rearing and paying for, and whatever, but marriage should be left in the church where it belongs.

In my poly flock, we call "marriage" a "certificate of insurability" and if anyone chooses to have such a piece of paper, it means nothing to the heirarchy. If anyone in my group feels so inclined to actually sanctify a union, they will handfast - that's the only ritual that means anything in our group. And it wouldn't be filed with the government.

So, basically what I'm saying is that since the government neither respects my personal ethics around separation of church and state, nor recognizes my very valid form of bonding, I don't choose to respect their thing they call marriage but I will "use" it as it serves the needs of my family. Depending on how one defines family (and despite our government's desire otherwise, we each get to decide who and what defines family), my family is rather large.

[Joshua N]

17. I'm a minister, and I think the church should be out of the marrying business. But the state should

too, at least with telling people who can and can not be married.

Originally, the church was involved to serve witness to marriage, to make sure people made good on their word - it was not meant to authorize the marriage. It got twisted as we can see.

[TechBear_Seattle]

19. Not quite

I'm also a minister (granted, through the Universal Life Church, the ORIGINAL mail-order ordination) and for three years I had a business doing civil marriages.

And actually, the role of the Church for centuries was to bless an existing marriage to be fruitful. Marriages of noble families occured when contracts were signed, usually when the principles were very young. Marriages among the common folk occured when a man and a woman started living together as husband and wife. The role of religion in creating a legal marriage did not exist until the second and third waves of the Protestant Reformation, when reformers held that ministers of the law should also be ministers of the Gospel. This doctrine never really took hold in Europe, but came to be the dominant paradigm of the North American colonies, which were settled originally by Protestant fanatics.

In Florida, Maine and North Carolina, notaries have the power to officiate at marriage; witnessing a marriage oath and putting a signature on a legal document is, after all, a notary act (a jurat, if you want to be technical.) I am all in favor of stripping clergy of their very limited notary authority and giving it to the people already authorized to take jurats.

[TechBear_Seattle]

18. Civil marriage has a legitimate purpose

My preference would be to remove automatic authority of clergy to officiate at weddings (this would require removing a single word from a single statute in the Revised Code of Washington) and giving that authority to notaries public. Witnessing a marriage oath is nothing more than a jurat, and a large part of a notary's job is to take jurats.

And yes, that was me. :hi: I wish we had gotten enough signatures to make the ballot and force the issue, but 40,000 was pretty darn good all things considered.

[xchrom]

5. ...

:woohoo:

[NMMNG]

7. Now we wait

Damn I hate this part.

But at least we know that within 90 days we'll have a decision, instead of some indefinite timeline. :shrug:

[cboy4]

8. The decision will come down just in time for the Dems to

throw us under the bus for "costing" the November election. :eyes:

Win or lose, it will be our fault.

[NMMNG]

9. It's always our fault

To hell with them.

[Tyler Durden]

10. We need a REAL third party.

And it needs to start 2 years before the next election, like January 2009.

[NMMNG]

11. If the Green Party were to get some real power

We might be able to make something happen....

[Tyler Durden]

12. From your mouth to Dog's Ear.

It's getting REALLY stupid REALLY fast out there. I don't know how old YOU are, but other people in their 50's are in SHOCK that the entire process could have gone this far, starting with Reagan.

[dickthegrouch]

13. Another Audio Link

The entire 3 hours and 21 minutes is available on KCBS site:

Links

[cboy4]

16. Oh sweet!

Thanks for the link dickthegrouch :)

[dickthegrouch]

14. Is it too late ....

Now that we've heard the opposition, is it too late to file more Amicus briefs?

How would one go about that?

I think the definition of "Establishment" needs to be clarified as part of the rebuttal of the Religious organizations. I also think their intellectual dishonesty (in briefs) of their supposed experience of emotional instability of same sex persons needs to be addressed.

[plantwomyn]

21. I think it is too late.

The court did recognize the NJ study about the inequality of CU-Partnership and marriage. I hope the Justices recognize that there is no test of emotional stability for straights and therefore should be NONE for us.

[plantwomyn]

20. I watched the entire hearing last night.

Thank you for the link.
Somewhat blurry eyed last night I felt so proud of Therese Stewart's representation of OUR community. Michael Moroko was great too. His hypothetical about flip flopping the statutes was to the point. I came away with hope and I think they will come in on our side. Even the Justices who seemed to be opposed had some good questions for the State. OMFG was the Lawyer for the state an idiot or what? He stammered through his argument and it made me angry that the state couldn't even articulate why IT was in opposition. I'm crossing my fingers and will celebrate WHEN the decision comes in in OUR favor. California can count of a visit from my family on our next vacation. We'll be having a wedding!