Allow me to remind lawyer John Stewart that those "four people in black robes" are justices of the California Supreme Court, and that it is their job to determine what is constitutional and what is not ["Marriage redefined despite voters' will," May 16].I am sure that if they had upheld the obviously unconstitutional Proposition 22, (defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman) he would have applauded their actions and congratulated them on properly performing their duties. Unfortunately for those like Stewart who wish to legislate their religious beliefs, voting for a ballot measure is not enough. It must actually be constitutional.
I am a church-attending straight Christian, and am ashamed that so many in my state voted to deny marriage to same sex couples. Don't think it is right? Fine, don't do it. Practice your religion in freedom and stop trying to vote away the rights of others in conformity with it.
The fervent seeking to define marriage as only between a man and a woman (and some further emphasize that it is for procreation, so where does that leave the infertile and otherwise childless?) reminds me of a time when the constitutional right to vote was defined by localities as being for white people only. I am sure they felt God was on their side too. It took rulings by "people in black robes" to settle that question, too.
I am fed up with zealots accusing judges who uphold others' constitutional rights of "legislating from the bench." In actuality, they are refusing to uphold laws that would, in effect, establish conservative Christianity as a state religion. Constitution, anyone?
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS SAME SEX MARRIAGE BAN!
A Victory for Marriage
Same-gender Couples Win Freedom to Marry
SAN FRANCISCO: In an historic decision today, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-gender couples deserve the freedom to marry under California law. The landmark ruling makes California the first state in the nation to give lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people full equality.
We want you to be a part of this historical moment.
::Attend one of the Celebration of Love and Family events across the state this evening. Bring your family, friends and a California flag.
We will come together to celebrate our love no matter the outcome. And together we will achieve equality.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the following statement today regarding the state Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage:
"I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its 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."
Assembly member Karen Bass sworn in as America’s first female African-American..
Assembly member Karen Bass was sworn in as America's first female African-American head of a legislative body yesterday, replacing Fabian Nuñez as California Assembly Speaker. A milestone indeed.
To do so, she plans to appoint an independent commission to look at the state's outdated tax structure. In her own words…
Bass also received a 100% score from Equality California, making her Bass-ically perfect. If the past has been any guide, California's LGBT community can count on Karen to get the job done. Way to go!
CALIFORNIA GOVENATOR AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE BAN
SAN DIEGO, April 11 (UPI) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Friday said he would oppose a state ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage, The Sacramento Bee reported.
Schwarzenegger, speaking to a gathering of gay Republicans in San Diego, called the initiative to amend the California constitution "a total waste of time," the newspaper said, citing an audio recording of the governor's remarks.
Schwarzenegger has previously vetoed two bills passed by the California Assembly to allow same-sex marriage. He told a meeting of Log Cabin Republicans Friday he expected California voters to reject the ballot initiative "because I think that California people are much further along on that issue."
Schwarzenegger said he would "always be there to fight against that because it will never happen."
"I think we need a constitutional amendment so that foreign-born citizens can run for president, but not about gay marriage," he said.
CALIFORNIA: MARRIAGE. ELIMINATION OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP RIGHTS INITIATIVE - FAILED TO QUALIFY
1293. (07-0061) Marriage. Elimination of Domestic Partnership Rights. Constitutional Amendment. FAILED to Qualify.
INITIATIVE FULL TEXT BELOW...
Section I : Title
This measure is The Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative.
Section 2: Marriage for One Man and One Woman Benefits Children, Families, and Society The People of California have a compelling responsibility to protect the essence of marriage by ensuring that the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman is not redefined, abolished, or diminished. The People find that marriage between one man and one woman is diminished when government decreases statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or when government requires private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or when government bestows statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individuals. The People further find and declare that it is in a child's best interest to have both a father and a mother, and that marriage rights for one man and one woman must be protected for the well-being of children, families, and society.
Section 3: Vote Yes to Protect Marriage from Being Redefined, Abolished, or Diminished Section 1.1 of Article I of the Constitution is added to read:
SEC. 1.1 . Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California, whether contracted in this state or elsewhere. A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome. Neither the Legislature nor any court, government institution, government agency , initiative statute, local government, or government official shall abolish the civil institution of marriage between one man and one woman, or decrease statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage shared by one man and one woman, or require private entities to offer or provide rights, incidents, or benefits of marriage to unmarried individuals, or bestow statutory rights, incidents, or employee benefits of marriage on unmarried individual s. Any public act, record, or judicial proceeding, from within this state or another jurisdiction, that violates this section is void and unenforceable.
CALIFORNIA SAME SEX MARRIAGE NOVEMBER BALLOT PROPS
SIGNATURE GATHERING HAS BEGUN TO PLACE DISCRIMINATORY MARRIAGE MEASURE ON CALIFORNIA'S NOVEMBER 2008 BALLOT
LOS ANGELES – After failing multiple times to qualify an anti-marriage equality measure for the ballot, conservative organizations are now utilizing paid signature gatherers in another attempt to put this discriminatory constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot according to Equality for All, the statewide campaign to defeat such measures. In 2006, California became the first state where an effort to qualify such a discriminatory amendment failed.
Equality for All has confirmed that an out-of-state organization is backing this effort to permanently deny loving and committed California couples the right to marry. Nationformarriage.org and protectmarriage.com are financially supporting this effort.
"These out-of-state extremists continue to expend time and resources to write discrimination into our California Constitution, in spite of the fact that Californians are tired of these costly and divisive campaigns," said Lorri L. Jean, chief executive officer of the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, and member of the Equality for All campaign's executive committee. "California voters have a long history of supporting fairness and equal treatment under the law. We believe voters will reject this measure, and the politics of hate and division it represents."
"We are committed to a vigorous opposition campaign," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, and a member of the Equality for All executive committee. "Californians support equality and we are determined to make sure voters understand the very real pain that comes with marriage discrimination and how these types of amendments will only bring harm to California families."
An amendment of this type would have long-term and damaging repercussions for Californians.
"Every day, lesbian and gay Californians are denied the right to marry the person they love. Every day, they are denied the dignity, respect, rights and responsibilities that only come with marriage," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a member of the Equality for All executive committee. "People should not be treated unfairly under the laws of our state. This amendment to our state's constitution would enshrine discrimination for generations of Californians."
"It is imperative that fair-minded Californians reject these efforts, by refusing to sign the petitions and talking with their friends and family members about why marriage discrimination is wrong," said Dr. Delores A. Jacobs, chief executive officer of The San Diego LGBT Community Center and a member of the executive committee of the Equality for All campaign. "Allowing one group of Californians to impose such a damaging form of discrimination on another group is simply wrong."
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO HEAR SAME SEX MARRIAGE CASE
California High Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Historic Marriage Case on March 4
Same-sex Couples Ask California Supreme Court to Strike Down Marriage Ban
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on March 4 in the marriage cases challenging the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage.
Fifteen same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition will be represented at oral arguments by Shannon Price Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is serving as co-counsel with Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, Heller Ehrman LLP and the Law Office of David C. Codell.
The marriage cases were filed in March, 2004. San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer ruled that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage violates the California Constitution. In a 2-1 vote, the California Court of Appeal reversed Judge Kramer's ruling. Shortly after the Court of Appeal's decision, the California Supreme Court granted review of the cases in order to consider the constitutional questions itself.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger highlighted that the California Supreme Court should decide the constitutional questions posed by the marriage statutes when he vetoed two measures passed by the California Legislature in 2005 and 2007 that would have permitted same-sex couples to marry.
The marriage cases are among the most heavily briefed cases in the history of the California Supreme Court. Late last year, more than 20 counties and municipalities filed a friend-of-the court brief in support of marriage for same-sex couples, including some of the most populous cities in California: Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, Long Beach, Sacramento, and Oakland. Also registering their support for marriage equality were numerous legal and bar associations, including the Los Angeles County Bar Association. In addition, many of the state's leading constitutional law scholars and family law professors filed briefs urging the court to permit same-sex couples to marry. More than 250 religious and civil rights leaders and organizations, including the California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, California Council of Churches, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and National Black Justice Coalition, also filed briefs supporting same-sex couples seeking the right to marry.
The California Supreme Court typically issues its decisions within 90 days following oral arguments.
2008 marks the 60th anniversary of the California Supreme Court's historic 1948 ruling that found it unconstitutional for the state to restrict access to marriage based on the race of the spouses. That ruling was the first of its kind in the nation's history, and is now the law of the land across the country. The California NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc., and Howard Law School Civil Rights Clinic have urged the court to apply the reasoning from its 1948 decision to the present marriage cases.
