It's a proud, proud day in California!
Anyone who knows me, knows I have 2 "hot button" issues: abortion rights (i.e., a woman's right to choose what to do with her body) and gay civil rights. Both are rooted in the Constitution, as basic freedoms guaranteed by our founding fathers and I really hate when legislators try to regulate these basic freedoms. So it was with great happiness today that I read the California Supreme Court struck down the legislative ban on gay marriage. For such a liberal state, it was ludicrous that something as basic as a human's right to be with another person could be denied. Take that, Governator!
By Crystal Carreon and Bill Lindelof - ccarreon@sacbee.com
Published 10:06 am PDT Thursday, May 15, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO - A deeply divided California Supreme Court said Thursday that California's ban on gay marriage is not legal, a move that sent off wild cheers and celebration in San Francisco.
Proponents of same-sex marriage had gathered Thursday morning awaiting the opinion, which came on a 4-3 vote, and erupted moments after it was released at 10 a.m.
In its 121-page majority opinion, the court stated emphatically that California law may not deprive gays and lesbians of the same rights of other citizens.
"...(R)etaining 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," the opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George said.
"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
On the courthouse steps, impromptu press conferences erupted amid gleeful sobbing and cheers.
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center For Lesbian Rights, a plaintiff in the suit, read reading part of the opinion, then looked up and told the crowd: "Every piece of statutory language that...excluded gays and lesbians is stricken," she said. "We are free to marry anyone."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a statement immediately after the opinion was issued saying he would uphold the 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," he added.
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.
But San Francisco officials and about 20 of the couples granted licenses four years ago
challenged the court decisions that invalidated their marriages, and in March the seven justices heard three hours of arguments over whether the state's ban on gay marriage denies gays and lesbians their constitutional rights.
Thursday's opinion has been eagerly anticipated by both sides in the argument, with many saying a decision in California would be felt nationwide. Only Massachusetts allows gay marriage.
Opponents of same-sex marriage already have readied a new ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to ban such unions.
By midmorning Thursday, same-sex couples hoping for a favorable ruling began to line up outside the San Francisco city clerk's office.
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."
Ivie and Bowers, together for 28 years, were among the thousands of gay couples who rushed to City Hall to be married in 2004.
They said they were horrified and heartbroken when their marriage was later voided, and spent the next four years following the gay marriage case as it made its way through the courts.
"We'll have each other forever, but we deserve the same rights as everybody else," Bowers said. "How can it hurt anyone else?"
A line slowly began to snake around the vinyl ropes outside the clerk's office.
Outside the court building Thursday, gay and lesbian proponents gathered, with many saying they were extremely anxious as they awaited the opinion.
Among the group were two Davis women, Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac, who said they have been together for 34 years and were the 45th couple married at City Hall in 2004.
Pontac carried a sign that said "Life feels different when you are married."
"We are full of hope," Bailes said. "This is extremely important. We have been fighting this fight for a really long time."
The women, who will speak tonight at a Sacramento gathering in midtown, drove to San Francisco to be at the courthouse for the decision.
"Shelly said this morning that she wouldn't be this nervous when we get married," Pontac said. "We've been together for 34 years. It has been a long-enough engagement."
After the opinion was issued and the crowd erupted, the two Davis women reacted differently.
Bailes cried, while a grinning Pontac got on her cell phone to deliver the news to someone else.
"This is incredible," Bailes said. "This is really it. We are legal."
Added Pontac, "We are planning our wedding day."
Kendell, one of the plaintiffs, said she expected the ruling to have a far-reaching impact nationally.
"Even though the ruling only applies to California, we all know the effect the state will have on the rest of the country," she said. "This is a harbinger state. People look to the state for leadership. The sunshine here today will extend to everywhere in this country where it has been hard to be a gay person."
By Crystal Carreon and Bill Lindelof - ccarreon@sacbee.com
Published 10:06 am PDT Thursday, May 15, 2008
SAN FRANCISCO - A deeply divided California Supreme Court said Thursday that California's ban on gay marriage is not legal, a move that sent off wild cheers and celebration in San Francisco.
Proponents of same-sex marriage had gathered Thursday morning awaiting the opinion, which came on a 4-3 vote, and erupted moments after it was released at 10 a.m.
In its 121-page majority opinion, the court stated emphatically that California law may not deprive gays and lesbians of the same rights of other citizens.
"...(R)etaining 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," the opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George said.
"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
On the courthouse steps, impromptu press conferences erupted amid gleeful sobbing and cheers.
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center For Lesbian Rights, a plaintiff in the suit, read reading part of the opinion, then looked up and told the crowd: "Every piece of statutory language that...excluded gays and lesbians is stricken," she said. "We are free to marry anyone."
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a statement immediately after the opinion was issued saying he would uphold the 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," he added.
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.
But San Francisco officials and about 20 of the couples granted licenses four years ago
challenged the court decisions that invalidated their marriages, and in March the seven justices heard three hours of arguments over whether the state's ban on gay marriage denies gays and lesbians their constitutional rights.
Thursday's opinion has been eagerly anticipated by both sides in the argument, with many saying a decision in California would be felt nationwide. Only Massachusetts allows gay marriage.
Opponents of same-sex marriage already have readied a new ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to ban such unions.
By midmorning Thursday, same-sex couples hoping for a favorable ruling began to line up outside the San Francisco city clerk's office.
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."
Ivie and Bowers, together for 28 years, were among the thousands of gay couples who rushed to City Hall to be married in 2004.
They said they were horrified and heartbroken when their marriage was later voided, and spent the next four years following the gay marriage case as it made its way through the courts.
"We'll have each other forever, but we deserve the same rights as everybody else," Bowers said. "How can it hurt anyone else?"
A line slowly began to snake around the vinyl ropes outside the clerk's office.
Outside the court building Thursday, gay and lesbian proponents gathered, with many saying they were extremely anxious as they awaited the opinion.
Among the group were two Davis women, Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac, who said they have been together for 34 years and were the 45th couple married at City Hall in 2004.
Pontac carried a sign that said "Life feels different when you are married."
"We are full of hope," Bailes said. "This is extremely important. We have been fighting this fight for a really long time."
The women, who will speak tonight at a Sacramento gathering in midtown, drove to San Francisco to be at the courthouse for the decision.
"Shelly said this morning that she wouldn't be this nervous when we get married," Pontac said. "We've been together for 34 years. It has been a long-enough engagement."
After the opinion was issued and the crowd erupted, the two Davis women reacted differently.
Bailes cried, while a grinning Pontac got on her cell phone to deliver the news to someone else.
"This is incredible," Bailes said. "This is really it. We are legal."
Added Pontac, "We are planning our wedding day."
Kendell, one of the plaintiffs, said she expected the ruling to have a far-reaching impact nationally.
"Even though the ruling only applies to California, we all know the effect the state will have on the rest of the country," she said. "This is a harbinger state. People look to the state for leadership. The sunshine here today will extend to everywhere in this country where it has been hard to be a gay person."