California Supreme Court to decide gay marriage case Thursday

Source: Lamda Legal

"The California Supreme Court has just announced that it will rule on the same-sex marriage lawsuits tomorrow. Lambda Legal is co-sponsoring two events in Los Angeles... first, a news conference at noon with members of the legal team and community leaders at the Village at Ed Gould Plaza, and second, a community gathering at 7:00 pm at the intersection of San Vicente and Santa Monica Boulevards in West Hollywood.

Read more: http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/BREAKING_California_Supreme_Court_to_decide_gay_marriage_case_0514.html

---

Keeping my fingers crossed....

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/04/15/1816

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it’s marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.


and the source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-j-davis/the-great-california-gay_b_96802.html

But the more states the better. One by one each and every state will someday recognize that all its citizens are equal and deserve the same rights and privileges via the same laws, forms and social institutions.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9257166

"The California Supreme Court will rule Thursday on the legality of the state's ban on gay marriage.

The justices today posted a notation on the court's Web site that the ruling in the civil rights challenge to the same-sex marriage ban will be posted at 10 a.m. Thursday. The Supreme Court heard arguments in five consolidated legal challenges in March, and had until early June to rule on the issue.

The long-awaited ruling is a crucial test of the simmering public, social and legal debate over gay marriage, triggered in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed thousands of gay and lesbian couples to wed before the courts put a halt to the marriage licenses."

That this even needs to be an issue makes my head hurt.

Isn't democracy great?

Do we get to vote on yours next?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You are not entitled to have any amount of say in the private lives of others. Period.

Just because the majority think something's true, doesn't mean it is.

The majority of Catholics used to believe the sun revolved around the earth. The majority of Americans believe that marriage is a political/governmental issue rather than a religious/personal one... and someday we'll laugh at that idea, too.

and the constitution grants equality for everyone - not just the majority.

A republic IS a form of democracy. I think you mean we are not a direct democracy.

Please leave the "We aren't a democracy!" meme to the right wing, it's embarrassing to see someone as smart as yourself using it :)

inalienable rights for everyone, even if that is just one person out of the entire population.

That's not how it fucking works.

I'm not saying that it's right. I'm just acknowledging reality.

doesn't rule.

The rights exist, whether our current customs and laws recognize them. They are inherent.

So while our system of gov't does require the process we're seeing at work in CA, it's not about majority rules at all.

the purpose of the Bill of Rights - to underline the idea that any right not expressly forbidden exists, and to outline all of the most important individual rights as supreme, primary, before the law.

Individual rights are only abridged in extreme cases, where the safety of the general public is at stake. ("Fire" in a crowded theater, etc.). Since in the case of marriage, there is no public safety issue, there is no greater public good issue -- then there is absolutely no constiutional reason to prohibit two adults from marrying, regardless of their gender.

No group of white people could constitutionally deny African Americans civil rights. It's the same principle here. Majority does not rule.

What a huge impact if CA joined MA, and probably soon NJ!

If California makes same-sex marriage legal, then all it would take to get it recognized nationwide is one lawsuit. Say a couple marries in Ca, then moves to KS. They could file for tax write offs as a married couple. If KS denies them, then the couple could sue because they made a legally binding contract in a state, and it must be upheld in all the states. If this were not the case, than any state could invalidate a marriage done out of state. By tying same-sex marriage to marriage rights in general, we can one day have universal right to marriage. Any lawyers out there that thinks this makes sense, because I was pulling it out of my memory, and I may be waaay off on this.

We already have marriage equality in one state, the great state of Massachusetts. Hopefully two, starting tomorrow.

As I understand it, the "Full Faith and Credit" clause applies only in certain circumstances. Also, with the federal Defense of Marriage Act declaring that the U.S. recognizes only hetero marriage, it would take a Supreme Court ruling to strike down that kind of discrimination at the federal level.

Meanwhile, many states have added marriage discrimination to their state constitutions, which are harder to change than laws.

Summary of status of marriage equality in the U.S. and in other countries is at http://marriageequality.org/meusa/facts.shtml?marriage-status .

means a SC ruling in favor of same-sex marriage would invalidate the state amendments, no? And I don't think it would be easy, but this seems like a legitimate path for someone to take... It would be difficult to get a case heard by the SC, but I think once there, it could happen. Or the legislature could do something for a change and repeal DOMA. but that ain't gonna happen. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment making same-sex marriage legal (but that will never happen i fear).

Source: San Jose Mercury News

The California Supreme Court will rule Thursday on the legality of the state's ban on gay marriage.

The justices today posted a notation on the court's Web site that the ruling in the civil rights challenge to the same-sex marriage ban will be posted at 10 a.m. Thursday. The Supreme Court heard arguments in five consolidated legal challenges in March, and had until early June to rule on the issue.

The long-awaited ruling is a crucial test of the simmering public, social and legal debate over gay marriage, triggered in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed thousands of gay and lesbian couples to wed before the courts put a halt to the marriage licenses.

San Francisco city officials and civil rights groups then challenged a state family code law that restricts marriage to a man and a woman, as well as a 2000 voter-approved ballot initiative that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. A San Francisco trial judge declared the ban unconstitutional, but a divided state appeals court in 2006 upheld the law, concluding that it is up to the voters or Legislature to legalize same-sex marriage, not judges. The state Supreme Court is reviewing that ruling.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_9257166

Prop 22 was set to ban any recognition of out of state same sex marriages. An outright ban is already in place as it is already illegal. Prop 22 is illegal and violates the 14th amendment whereas the bans are going to get stuck down in due course. As much as I'd love to see nuanced politicians actually legalize gay marriage it's going to go through the courts and be legalized that way so it doesn't much matter how it is phrased in any state law or state amendments. The only thing that could perhaps have stopped the legalization onslaught would have been a constitutional ban. The reason a constitutional ban is needed is pretty much because previous courts have found that marriage is a right of the people and the government has no right to interfere in the sex lives of adults. It's going to happen even if gay couples from Boston have to move to every state in the union and challenge the laws and defeat them one by one like the old Jim Crow.

A ban on the ballot isn't going to overcome the constitutionality, it would, however, drive right wing voters to the polls.

Prop 22 outlawed recognizing same sex marriages from other states - as you said it was already illegal in CA.

The religious right has already gathered enough signatures to put an amendment to the CA state constitution on the November ballot - right now the signatures are being verified.

See: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008General

"Initiatives Pending Signature Verification

Limit on Marriage. Constitutional Amendment.

Summary Date: 11/29/07 Circulation Deadline: 04/28/08 Signatures Required: 694,354

Proponents: Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Hak-Shing William Tam, and Mark A. Jansson c/o Andrew Pugno (916) 608-3065

Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.) (Full Text)"

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

Here's hoping.