California Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
by BooMan
Marriage Equality in California!
The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay
marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the
second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not
a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote
the opinion.The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay
rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's
monthlong same-sex wedding march.The case before the court 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.
"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around
the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive
director of the gay rights group Equality California.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.A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting
to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine
California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state
constitution.The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether
the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage
amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
- Original article
- FILED UNDER: Guest Blogger
- May 15, 2008








Maybe skeetjr will finally feel accepted
He'll be so happy.
- Email this page
By f u bush2May 15, 2008 - 5:21pmCA could "go red"
What with all the closeted G0Pers soon to relocate here.
Maybe Ah-nold will be their best mahnly-mahnn. I mean, just look at how he's kept up that hunky physique:
Sure makes ME want to switch to "driving stick!"
Not.
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastMay 15, 2008 - 7:30pmgetting old
really sucks!!
- Email this page
By hufflarry2000May 15, 2008 - 7:37pmIndeed it does
But most of us aren't the Girly-mahn hating Govenfuhrer.
You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.
---Ray Bradbury
- Email this page
By LiberalIconoclastMay 15, 2008 - 7:40pmTell me about it...
Youth and beauty only last so long. After that fades, all that's left is money and power. Ask the g0p...especially about the money, and why they're so busy looting the US Treasury under cover of "tax breaks".
Back on topic, though...isn't it odd that Ahnold decided NOT to put the gay-marriage question to a referendum? Sort of flies in the face of everything the g0p wanted from him, doesn't it?
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. ~~~John Kenneth Galbraith
- Email this page
By nonexistent manMay 16, 2008 - 4:15amYikes!
I would say I just threw up in my mouth, but even my mouth couldn't contain it this time.
- Email this page
By AntillectualMay 15, 2008 - 10:02pmAgain, the courts are denying the will of the people
who voted against same sex marriage in that state. Just like the courts did with Dred Scott and Jim Crow.
- Email this page
By naacprepMay 16, 2008 - 12:10amre: By naacprep May 16, 2008 - 12:10am
The Constitution protects the rights of the minority from the irrational fears of the majority. The court's responsibility is to determine the constitutionality of a law, not to bow down to mob rule. If you can't comprehend that, then move somewhere that you don't have Constitutional protections.
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
- Email this page
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 6:53amThats funny.
Thats not how it seemed to work regarding slavery, internment, poll taxes, etc.
And voting on a matter is not "Mob Rule".
And the courts do not and should not have the power to "Make Law". Their role is solely to interput
the law.
If you can't comprehend that, then move somewhere that you don't have Constitutional protections.
- Email this page
By naacprepMay 16, 2008 - 12:06pmBy naacprepMay 16, 2008 - 12:06pm
Why don't you go try to comprehend the constitution?
Listen hatey you are a joke. No one cares about your nonsense. I mean in one post you contradict your self:
First of all I assume you mean interpreting the law as in saying "thats bad - change it". That isn't how it works. They strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Secondly mob rule can occur and that is exactly what the courts are for. They are a constitutional protection.
I see you are as stupid as back when you tried to tell us the democrats were trying to enslave people of color.
- Email this page
By f u bush2May 16, 2008 - 12:15pmre: By naacprep May 16, 2008 - 12:06pm
"Their role is solely to interput the law."
They didn't make law. The found the law unconstitutional. And the funny thing is that most of those justices were conservatives. Those damn legislate-from-the-bench activist conservative judges!
♪ ♫ ♪ ♫ ♪
"Three great forces rule the world: stupidity, fear and greed." -- Albert Einstein
- Email this page
By GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 12:51pmBy GazmikMay 16, 2008 - 12:51pm
It was the right decision and unless there is a Constitutional Amendment it is the right decision for the rest of the states. This should be interesting....
Actually the judges weren't activist at all. It would have been "activist" to uphold the law.
I love to see the "Christian Right" get one stuck in their eye...
"My presidency will be al Qaeda's worst nightmare." -John McCain Sep 4, 2007
- Email this page
By Fight4itMay 16, 2008 - 3:07pmThe courts are part of the government
They play a role in protecting the rites of individuals.
The will of the people can be wrong. The courts are there to evaluate the legislation.
- Email this page
By f u bush2May 16, 2008 - 12:35amIts about time.
Its about time.
- Email this page
By punchcatMay 16, 2008 - 1:19amThere will be more homosexuals than evangelicals in the US
In the near future.
- Email this page
By f u bush2May 16, 2008 - 1:35pm