As they did in 1948 when they struck down the state ban on interracial marriage twenty years ahead of the rest of the nation, the California Supreme Court today declared that it was a violation of basic civil rights to deny gay Californians the right to marry members of the same sex.
Formal arguments in the case were set aside and the court went directly to questioning witnesses and attorneys for several days, as justices attempted to weigh the validity of the gay marriage ban in California's Proposition 22 against the rights protections in the California state constitution. Arguments against gay marriage included appeals to tradition and that civil unions were sufficient as a separate but equal alternative and that heterosexual marriage was somehow diminished by the existence of gay marriage. The court seemed more persuaded by the argument that if marriage was a right it should be a right applied exactly equally to all, regardless of gender or sexual preference.
In their decision, the court made specific comparisons to their prior ruling on interracial marriage in Perez vs. Sharp, which rejected tradition and established the "fundamental constitutional right to marry". On this basis they ruled that a separate status for gay unions could never be truly equal to marriage, concluding:
retaining 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 California decision is far more meaningful than just an instance of a group of justices legislating morality from the bench. Governor Schwarzenegger had vetoed state legislation to legalize gay marriage, leaving the decision up to the court, but agreeing to sign such legislation if the court approved it. Now that they have acted, the road is clear for the passage of a statewide law supporting gay marriage which would make California the first and only state to authorize gay marriage legislatively.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Douglas Mays
Oh man, this is great news!!! It is about time. I mean, when I saw this information come across the news, I let out a 'yahoo!'.
Let me put it this way, It is an end of oppression on this level.
don't get me wrong, I am so not gay. I am one who is very evolved when it comes to personal sexuality/relationships, etc. so are gays, for the most part.
the most fucked up are hetrosexuals that jack off to blondes with big boobs or little boys or some kink.
Love and sexuality is a very chemical, individual reaction. Those who forge relationships against the will of the other half are sick and should be imprisoned.
That is where the crime against society and god is. Has nothing to do with being gay.
Go to California or Massachusetts and get married gays! Right now! Do it before conservative or religious sociopaths fuck it up.
wedding bells,
DM
2 - zingzing
good one, california. get ready for the shit storm.
3 - Andy Marsh
I've always heard it said...as goes CA, so goes the country.
Iwonder how this will work though. With so many other states having laws making smae sex marriage illegal, will this ruling cross state lines and if not, how long will it take?
VA didn't strike down interracial marriage until the '60's! How long will it take them to pull their collective heads out?
4 - Dr Dreadful
Remains to be seen whether the Governator will renege on his promise to sign the legislation. I'm sure the lobbying by the 'traditional values' mob has already begun. But he's not up for re-election for another couple of years (actually, I'm not sure if he's even eligible to be re-elected), so that particular thumbscrew is non-operational at least.
5 - Jordan Richardson
"the most fucked up are hetrosexuals that jack off to blondes with big boobs or little boys or some kink."
Yeah, those blondes with big boobs. How perverse!
6 - Douglas Mays
"How perverse". Yup, the point of my 'big boobs' statement is about being out of touch with the details of healthy human relationships.
If a 'looksist' point of view is how one determines a human relationship in which sex is the peak (a lot of accessment has to go down before you get to sex), you are no better than a rapist. It might be part of one's personal chemistry, but if you leave it at boobs/blonde as a final determining factor in one's emotional sexuality--uh, I have nothing good to say about such unevolved people.
Point being, what is the difference to being attracted to to blonde/boobs as to having desire for same sex? Regardless of sexual orientation, blonde/boobs principles still apply.
Some will understand what I am saying. To others, it is all Japanese or algebra or rocket surgery or brain science. Figure it out.
DM
7 - Dr Dreadful
Is it me, or does Douglas sometimes come across as a male Zedd?
8 - Andy Marsh
I married a brunette with little ones two weeks after I met her...what's that make me?
I'm actually quite frightened by hair on boobs, whatever color it may be!!! I mean, the occasional stray hair is one thing...but a full blown blond boob would just scare the hell out of me!!!
9 - duane
I married a brunette with little ones two weeks after I met her...what's that make me?
A stepdad?
10 - Andy Marsh
Guess I shoulda also put in there that she's five years older than I am...
We have two daughters that are ours. We've been married almost 25 years.
...not even sure if I get that joke?!??! It was supposed to be a joke right???
11 - Andy Marsh
You know what really sucks...when you hit return and then say to yourself.....OOOOHHHHHHHH!!!
Now I get it! Different little ones...
12 - Andy Marsh
Sometimes a good sized hammer is required to get into this skull Doc!
[As one of the comments editors I decided to go in and delete my last after I saw that you'd gotten there just before I left my helpful hint. So now this thread makes even less sense than it already did! - Doc]
13 - Doug Hunter
This is a bad decision, states should not be in the business of determining marriages, churches should. Many churches would gladly perform this service if it were legal, also they would perform services for polygamists or any other currently underpriviledged group. If anyone is a 'second class citizen' under this system it is singles (which does apply to gays by default prior to the decision).
Why should anyone, gay or straight, be treated any differently by the law whether they choose to have a special marriage partner or not?
14 - Bennett
Not sure I follow your logic here, Doug. You start out by saying that this is a bad decision, then the rest of your comment seems to contradict that position.
It might just be me, but your last sentence makes my head ache.
15 - Doug Hunter
What's hard to understand? Churches should decide marriages, not the state. States should treat every individual like an individual whether they choose to marry or not. Problem solved.
16 - Doug Hunter
Oh, and I'm still pissed as I used to work for the government at a position where married people made more money for doing the same job. (these people were often getting out of travel for 'family reasons' and taking sick days to care for kids which only irritated me more)
That's where I decided the government should treat everyone equal regardless of marital status. The gay marriage debate only strengthened my view and made me realize the government had no business dabbling in this religious ceremony in the first place.
17 - Dave Nalle
This is a bad decision, states should not be in the business of determining marriages, churches should.
I think you got that backwards, Doug. If you read the decision, one of the ideas behind ruling the way they did was to take away the state's role in deciding who could and could not get married. This is a victory for the rights of individuals over the state and the arbitrary rule of the majority.
DAve
18 - Doug Hunter
Ohhhh, I see now. It wasn't a bad decision it just should never have been their decision to make. Poor choice of words I suppose. It's a good decision sorta like the Missouri compromise was good legislation.
19 - Cindy D
Great article Dave.
This thread is hilarious. Hairy blonde boobs...hrmm.
Douglas May, I have a strange comprehension of exactly what you are saying. Perhaps for different reasons than you are saying it. Anyway, I think that word switch with the rocket surgery was very funny.
20 - Zedd
Doc,
How dare you? I was scratching my head on the blond boobs comment.
21 - Douglas Mays
Cindy, thank you. Yeah, you get it. I like your use of 'strange comprehension'.
Hairy blonde boobs? I once had a mate who said she should get her boobs waxed!
Oh gosh.
best,
DM
22 - Mooja
Doug is right. The government should not penalized a citizen for being single. We should be repealing the laws that reward marriage instead of fight against who allowed to be labeled married and who isn't.
23 - Zedd
Mooja,
I disagree. I think that marriage is a great investment for any society. I think that marriage between two genders is the best way to insure a balanced offspring and therefore a future with healthy inhabitants.
24 - Dave Nalle
Zedd, the role of the government should not be social engineering. Removing the government role in marriage would make marriage stronger and more credible, not weaken the institution. It would put it in the hands of churches which have much more of a stake in making sure that marriages succeed than the state does.
Dave
25 - Dan Miller
Dave,
You say, and I agree, that the role of the government should not be social engineering.
Unfortunately, it did quite a lot of social engineering in the past, does it now, and will doubtless continue to do so in the future.
We also agree that the government should have no role in marriage; for it to have such a role is social engineering. However, the tax system, social security system, the health care system, and numerous other systems are forms of social engineering, which go far beyond marriage by encouraging social attitudes in other areas which many find damaging.
Do you realistically foresee any significant likelihood of changes for the better in these and other forms of governmental social engineering? I wish that I could, but just don't see any likelihood.
Dan