CA Supreme Court Refuses to overturn Prop H8

[FORD]

So does this mean GAyR & Jizzy are legally wed, or not? :confused:

[FORD]

Calif. court upholds gay-marriage ban
But ruling by justices also allows existing same-sex unions to stand
The Associated Press
updated 12:45 p.m. MT, Tues., May 26, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

Demonstrators outside the court yelled "shame on you!" Gay-rights activists promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal the ban.

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument from gay-rights activists that the ban, Proposition 8, revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with the voter-approved Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."

They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

The decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they yelled "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut.

"In the same way that marriage is for better or for worse some decisions of our Supreme Court are better, but this one is for the worse," said Gloria Allred, the attorney representing a lesbian couple in a lawsuit against Prop 8. Allred’s clients are Robin Tyler and Diane Olson, the first same-sex couple to marry in the state in June in Los Angeles County.

Split decision
The court said it is well-established legal principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to apply retroactively, and there was no such clear indication in Proposition 8.

That provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.

"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."

Also in the crowd gathered at City Hall, near the courthouse, were Sharon Papo, 30, and Amber Weiss, 32, who were married on the first day that gay marriage was legal last year, June 17.

"We're relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to marry those they love," Weiss said.

"I feel very uncomfortable being in a special class of citizens," Papo said.

A small group of Prop 8 supporters also had gathered outside the court to hear the ruling.

"A lot of people just assume we're religious nuts. We're not. But we are Christians and we believe in the Bible," said George Popko, 22, a student at American River College in Sacramento, where the student government officially endorsed Prop 8.

The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Prop 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, by a 52 percent majority, gay-rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters and amounted to a revision — which required legislative approval — not an amendment.

Constitutional question
That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.

"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote the dissenting opinion disagreeing that the proposition did not change the constitution's equal protection clause. He said the law denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a "drastic and far-reaching change."

"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," said Moreno, who had been mentioned as a possible contender for the U.S. Supreme Court. "Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."

Gay-rights advocates scheduled marches throughout California and in several other states for Tuesday evening to protest the ruling.


© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: Calif. court upholds gay-marriage ban - Life- msnbc.com

[FORD]

I don't see how the fuck this ruling can stand. Gays are arguably already 2nd class citizens when they are not allowed to marry. Now this court has effectively split them into two different classes themselves. So would that make the unmarried gays "third class citizens"??

Do some research while you're in the library, GAyR. Find out how to claim the victory for your people.

[ZahZoo]

I think the whole matter is rather ironic... there's no legal elements blocking 2 people regardless of gender from entering into a civil union or contract. The heart of the issue is they can't just earn all that with a quick license and a ceremony package we commonly refer to as marriage.

Quite frankly I think we should segregate all the religious and morale crap from marriage and require people to sit in an in-depth legal briefing on all of the state statutes and legal implications of hooking up. Then if they still have the hankerin... bring in the fancy clothes, ministers and invisible friends for the big, over-priced, waste of money hoopla party!!

98% of people married today have no frickin idea of the legal jungle they just signed up for when they decide to hitch it up. Until the big D rears it's ugly face...

[Big Train]

That pretty much is the only way out of this standoff Zahzoo. Which is fine by me, I'm not very tied to religion as some of the ultra conservatives. Let's just call it a contract and be done with it.

[sadaist]

an in-depth legal briefing on all of the state statutes and legal implications of hooking up.

That there is the problem. The government treats married people differently than single people. The government should stay out of the marriage game. Marriage should be a religious or spiritual bond between two people, and those two people should not get any differential treatment from people who choose not to enter unions like that.

However, I do believe in this case the court ruled correctly in upholding the people's vote to amend the constitution. I don't really like all the protesters getting arrested and such. Wait 18 months and have the people vote again. Civil disobedience isn't going to win many people over the way the media is presenting it on the news.

[thome]

Has this world ever had a shortage of deviants looking for the legal system to label them normal.. behaviorally?

It is a need of desperately unsure people.

They can't .... find it within themselves, so they seek without self.. attempt to be "Labeled Normal".

Bank robbers are hungry we should legalize that too...denying food to the psycotic, is still wrong.

I suppose my blatantly clear thinking makes me a hate monger or bigot.

But only to the people who -NEED- society to accept them.

They try to say Marriage is a benefit, and that is a LIE!!!.

This is a scam to find -legal self worth- within a sexually deviant practice.

YAY... I am finally accepted.......By WHO?

[thome]

[QUOTE=sadaist;1352920]T Marriage should be a religious or spiritual bond between two people, and those two people should not get any differential treatment from people who choose not to enter unions like that.
QUOTE]


That is found the minute you embrace a fellow human ....I never needed the state to tell me I have a spiritual bond and I have become one with someone...

But maybe some people do.....?

Sad really

[FORD]

That there is the problem. The government treats married people differently than single people. The government should stay out of the marriage game. Marriage should be a religious or spiritual bond between two people, and those two people should not get any differential treatment from people who choose not to enter unions like that.

However, I do believe in this case the court ruled correctly in upholding the people's vote to amend the constitution. I don't really like all the protesters getting arrested and such. Wait 18 months and have the people vote again. Civil disobedience isn't going to win many people over the way the media is presenting it on the news.

So then, the REAL problem is the whore media, and not the protests.

Civil rights protests and anti war marches worked back in the 60's, when we still had a responsible press.

Aside from that, the mere idea of civil rights being up for a popular vote is ridiculous. Because as effective as Dr. King and his fellow marchers were, if you had put black civil rights up for a "popular vote" in the South, the results would have been far worse than Prop H8.

And the worst thing about this vote is that it removed existing civil rights. Sure the court tells the currently gay married couples that they can stay that way, but they revoked that same right from others.

And apartheid cannot stand in this country. Not in the South, and not in Collieforneea.

[sadaist]

So then, the REAL problem is the whore media, and not the protests.

Yes & no. The media only shows the most outrageous protesters of course, which reflects badly on all of them. But then again, there is a small minority of protesters who take things a bit too far. Fault on both sides.

[ZahZoo]

That there is the problem. The government treats married people differently than single people. The government should stay out of the marriage game. Marriage should be a religious or spiritual bond between two people, and those two people should not get any differential treatment from people who choose not to enter unions like that.

Look... it's just not that simple!! Clearly you're not married or more to the point have never been divorced... that's where the real life lesson is learned.

The religious and spiritual side is primarily all of the emotional crap that comes with marriage. 98% of that comes into play via a 1 time ceremony. After that the real life begins...

The basis for government involvement comes down to laws. In the US it's state laws. The basis for the laws breaks down into property ownership, finances and spousal/parental rights. Most states don't even tell you but when you sign that marriage license... you are signing a binding contract concerning all property rights, future earnings and legal rights associated with children and the ability to act as power of attorney representing your spouse.

The laws are a result of generations of tradition... most of it dates back before christianity was invented. It involved doweries and property rights. Many of which were prearranged among families as part of business. Only in the last century has the concept of a man owning his wife as a piece of property changed... Along the way laws were needed to clean up the fucking mess when a marriage ran into the ditch.

None of this had a damn thing to do with religion and spiritual bullshit... it all boils down to wealth and money...

The thing gays are fighting for can be had by any of em today. All they need is a decent contract lawyer and some jackass to oversee the wretched ceremony.

[Big Train]

At the end of the day, the whole fight is over a word. A religious word. Gays see it as wanting what straights have, the same level. But it's also at least partly about getting rid of the stigma of being gay (as if a word could do that). The religious see it as an attack on the basic tenets of their religion itself. So you end up with a pissing contest between two groups with two different things to fight for.

If you remove the word marriage, nobody really has that much of an opinion.

If you phrased it that way, nobody cares. Is it ok for a man and a woman to enter into a contractual obligation to split assets and liabilities? Sure. Is it ok for a man and a man to enter into a contractual obligation to split assets and liabilities? Yup, happens everyday in business. This is no different, it's just a word that upsets all parties.

Make the contract equal protections to both types of unions, create one form, leave religion to the churches and move on to pressing issues, like say the fucking taxes or economy.

[sadaist]

Look... it's just not that simple!! Clearly you're not married or more to the point have never been divorced... that's where the real life lesson is learned.

The religious and spiritual side is primarily all of the emotional crap that comes with marriage. 98% of that comes into play via a 1 time ceremony. After that the real life begins...

The basis for government involvement comes down to laws. In the US it's state laws. The basis for the laws breaks down into property ownership, finances and spousal/parental rights. Most states don't even tell you but when you sign that marriage license... you are signing a binding contract concerning all property rights, future earnings and legal rights associated with children and the ability to act as power of attorney representing your spouse.

The laws are a result of generations of tradition... most of it dates back before christianity was invented. It involved doweries and property rights. Many of which were prearranged among families as part of business. Only in the last century has the concept of a man owning his wife as a piece of property changed... Along the way laws were needed to clean up the fucking mess when a marriage ran into the ditch.

None of this had a damn thing to do with religion and spiritual bullshit... it all boils down to wealth and money...

The thing gays are fighting for can be had by any of em today. All they need is a decent contract lawyer and some jackass to oversee the wretched ceremony.

Actually, I've been both married and divorced. But that shouldn't change the laws. If my ex opened a secret credit card on her own, I shouldn't be on the hook for it because we are married. But if we sign a contract together (mortgage, car loan, etc...) then of course we are both liable. But it should not be automatic. It would be the same if a friend and I bought something together and both signed the loan agreement. I just don't think that the title "married" should create this entire code of laws and everything is automatically 50/50. Makes for more headaches than it's worth. Not so much during the marriage, but definitely during a divorce.

Either way, it is what it is. Moral to the story is if anyone is considering getting married, think long & hard about it....and squirrel some money away somewhere.

[GAR]

Oh cool, deleting my posts now?

Is that what this forum's come to - just like on the GoodShip DDLR.com aye..

Where's my post? Whodunnit and what did you do with my post..

[Igosplut]

At the end of the day, the whole fight is over a word. A religious word. Gays see it as wanting what straights have, the same level. But it's also at least partly about getting rid of the stigma of being gay (as if a word could do that). The religious see it as an attack on the basic tenets of their religion itself. So you end up with a pissing contest between two groups with two different things to fight for.

If you remove the word marriage, nobody really has that much of an opinion.

If you phrased it that way, nobody cares. Is it ok for a man and a woman to enter into a contractual obligation to split assets and liabilities? Sure. Is it ok for a man and a man to enter into a contractual obligation to split assets and liabilities? Yup, happens everyday in business. This is no different, it's just a word that upsets all parties.

Make the contract equal protections to both types of unions, create one form, leave religion to the churches and move on to pressing issues, like say the fucking taxes or economy.

Best post in my opinion.