Gay Marriage Ban Overturned In California

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in California, Law, Marriage, Religion, Sexuality

Well done…

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – 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.
The case involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter- approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

Remember, they could be the second state. That doesn’t mean this decision says gay marriage is legal in Cali.

As I’ve stated before, I don’t know why the government is in the business of marriage in the first place. Let that be up to churches. Government should be in the business of allowing two people to form a civil union for legal and property purposes, and nothing else.

And to that point, Cali apparently already has a law that does just that…

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It’s therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

More as it develops…


This entry was posted on Thursday, May 15th, 2008 and is filed under California, Law, Marriage, Religion, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

18 Responses to “Gay Marriage Ban Overturned In California”

  1. gerryf Says:

    Well, I better run outside and see if the sky is falling….nope. Imagine that.

  2. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Government should be in the business of allowing two people to form a civil union for legal and property purposes

    Why? And why not 3 people, or 5 like the Muslims do. How about 25, like a big happy hippy commune? Should the government be in the business of preventing Dos Perros from marrying his sister? Why does the judge get to decide this and not the legislature? Plenty of homosexuals get married – no one is discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. Both Al Gore and John Edwards are married for God’s sake! And both are against gay marriage!!

  3. Grant Gould Says:

    Have only just started reading the opinion, but it looks to me a lot like the similar Massachusetts decision — that the state constitution’s equal-protection, privacy, and due-process clauses are more extensive than the US constitution’s (that is, there are few/no implications beyond California), and that the state failed to give a convincing rational basis for the restriction.

    The decision is quite long, but seems fairly readable. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF for those who care. (My view is, never trust a news report of a court decision, just read the decision — news reports usually get the important details wrong)

    Jimmy — and once black people had the right to marry black people and white people the right to marry white people. It may be that changing that will eventually lead to polygamous marriage and whatnot, but I can’t help but note that it hasn’t yet.

  4. TheMiddle Says:

    Brilliantly well done – and I love that the supreme court pretty much cited my exact feelings when they noted that people have an inherent right to marry the people they love.

  5. mike mcEachran Says:

    I don’t know why gays are so hung up needing the word “married”. I’m gay and I think two men or two women in a civil union is different than a married couple – it just is – and I’m glad. I’ve seen “marriages” and they mostly suck. I just want the legal rights not the damn word. Let the crazies have it. Jimmy – it’s all yours.

  6. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Let the crazies have it. Jimmy – it’s all yours.

    Thanks, I’ll take it from here. And now its time to read And Tango Makes 3to your child in public school kindergarten, followed by “Ahmed and his Four Mommies,” and then “Daddy Loves your Adult Sister in a Special Way.”

  7. mike mcEachran Says:

    See the penguins aren’t married, and the raised their daughter just fine. I couldn’t find the other two selections, Jimmy, can you please provide links like you did the delightful penguin book? Thanks!

  8. TheMiddle Says:

    So now monogamous relationships between two loving people (regardless of their gender), are akin to polygamy and incest?

    You draw quite a connection there.

  9. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    Who are you to tell me what is akin to what, or whether I am akin to my wife!! Where in the constitution does it say that marriage must be a government-endorsed institution defined as any two people regardless of gender? Hey man, if you don’t love your two sisters the way McEachran does, that’s too bad, who are you to judge? If you want to distinguish two loving gay people as something elevated over incest and polygamy, and institutionalize it then why don’t you vote for it or do it democratically? Wait… you can’t!! Ha ha.

    Jimmy, can you please provide links like you did the delightful penguin book? Thanks!

    I’m writing them now, and once you sue your state for the right to marry your 2 sisters, I will publish them!! Or you could move to the Netherlands, or to Ontario, and wait 30-40 years until the population becomes majority Muslim, then my Ahmed book will sell like hotcakes!!

    =P

  10. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    ADDENDUM: oops, I meant 2 brothers. Sorry mike.

  11. Donklephant » Blog Archive » The Problem With Court-Mandated Gay Marriage Says:

    [...] allowed gay marriage continued today. From my understanding, the specifics of the California case create a legal pathway to gay marriage without actually mandating the legalization of the practice. So I want to be clear, this post is [...]

  12. mike mcEachran Says:

    Sure man. But I’m glad you corrected, you were startin to freak me out. What are you doin later?

  13. Alan Stewart Carl Says:

    I think gay marriage opponents end up looking pretty foolish when they equate gay marriage to the act to incest or polygamy. You have to be willfully blind not to see the difference between a marriage of two consenting adults and the kinds of exploitations that go on in incest and polygamist situations. I’m not big on courts taking the lead on legalizing gay marriage but I think many gay marriage proponents sound like Chicken Littles with their wild assertions.

  14. Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:

    I’m with you ASC, the possibility of Gay Penguin books being force fed to my children in public school on my dollar is the only thing that prevents me from voting for gay marriage. Have a school voucher system and I would reconsider.

    If you are an FLDS member or a Muslim, they might see a big difference between polygamy and gay marriage too! Give it a few decades until the Muslim population builds up in Europe, or even in eastern Canada. You will see this issue brought up again, and this time, because a class of dark-skinned exotic immigrants are calling for cultural change, it would be too politically incorrect for the typical proponents of gay marriage to chastise them for it.

  15. gerryf Says:

    I think Dos should marry his brother, or better yet, Jimmy–let’s get those chromozones out of the gene pool.

    just kidding

  16. wj Says:

    Jimmy, just FYI the California legislature has already done exactly as you suggest (at 11:46). I thas passed a law providing for gay marriage. Not just once, but twice.

    Both times the Governor vetoed it. So that’s the reason that the judges are deciding this. Not because the legislature didn’t act.

    Does that make it better for you?

    P.S. The same Governor has announced that he will oppose an attempt to amend the California Constitution to overturn the judges ruling. Interesting.

  17. Dos Says:

    Sorry I’m late to the game here. You see I after Lawrence v. Texas, I developed a new hobby involving a beautiful knot-hole in this grand oak tree in my backyard. The neighbors called the police on me and I was arrested for my new hobby, which I was performing at 2:00 am out of…you know…decency. Anyway, I explained to the judge that in fact my new hobby was more than a hobby, it was a substantive due process right as established by Lawrence and manifested a profound relationship that I have with nature in general and this oak tree specifically. So there you have it…the constitution, written on paper, and paper comes from trees and I LOVE trees. What does marriage have to do with? I can marry my oak tree any time I want, but what do they say about the cow and the milk?

  18. Dos Says:

    I think gay is sooo yesterday. My position has always been gay contractual issues are state matters. I have no problem with this ruling. It is the soveriegn right of California to overrule the will of its citizens reguarding gay marriage. I would have personally voted for the definition of marriage as being between a man and woman.

    I don’t see how anybody with a shred of intellectual honesty can, based on the arguments posed in favor of gay marriage, support the prohibition of polygamy. First of all, you have many perfectly adjusted polygamist families in which there is no exploitation, merely sacrifice and a different family arrangement. Every human relationship is vulnerable to exploitation. Feminazis’ have long maintained that marriage between man and woman is institutionalized rape. Polygamist communities may lend themselves to unhealthy power structures and exploitation, but in no way is every polygamist family exploitative and unhealthy, or even the majority.

    As for naturalness, if marriage is merely a social construct which should be tailored for a variety of human relationships among consenting adults, then there is no reason to exclude consenting polygamists. Biologically, polygamist marriage makes more sense than homosexual marriage in terms of reproductive utility.

    Polyphobics falsely believe that polygamy is about the sexual drive of the husband. In fact, polygamy is the realization of a spiritual and religious ideal. So not only does the prohibition on polygamy violate “the liberty [which provides] protection to adullt persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in ammters pertaining to sex” but it also tramples on the right of people to practice their religion.

    Polyphobics, much like homophobics, often fall back on “protecting the children” to disguise their bigoted and bias views. I say way to go Cali – now on to finding the “Tyranny of 2″ equally unconstitutional.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: