| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:36 pm California Court: Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional |
|
| Quote: |
Calif. Marriage Law Found Unconstitutional
Monday, March 14, 2005
SAN FRANCISCO � In a win for gay rights activists, a judge in California ruled Monday that marriage cannot constitutionally be limited to a legal union between a man and a woman.
If upheld on appeal, Monday's ruling by San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer would pave the way for the Golden State to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples (search) to wed.
The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage alone cannot justify not providing equal protection to gay and lesbian couples and their right to marry.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote. "The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."
Kramer's decision came in a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn California's statutory ban on gay marriage (search). They were brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March, after the California Supreme Court halted the four-week marriage spree Mayor Gavin Newsom (search) had initiated when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.
Newsom, who gained national attention for urging city officials to continue to marry same-sex couples, last month marked the anniversary of his decision to sanction same-sex marriage by urging gay couples to back politicians who support it.
"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California, that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.
Immediately, opponents of gay marriage said they would appeal. The Alliance Defense Fund (search) and another legal group representing religious conservatives joined Attorney General Bill Lockyer in defending the existing law. Lockyer has previously said he expected the case to reach the California Supreme Court. The case will likely go through the Court of Appeals before it reaches the state's highest bar.
But supporters said they expected the precedent to work for them within the court system and at the ballot box, both places where Therese Stewart, attorney for the city and county of San Francisco, expected the battle for gays and lesbians to marry to be fought.
"It's a foregone conclusion that it's going to go up on appeal," Stewart said.
Meanwhile, a pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters follow the 13 other states that approved such amendments last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.
President Bush himself has said he supports a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between one man and one woman. Momentum behind that goal has simmered somewhat in Congress.
Nevertheless, the plaintiffs and their lawyers said Kramer's ruling was a milestone for California, akin to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state in the nation to legalize interracial marriage.
The decision is the latest development in a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex marriage that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional in that state.
In the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay rights advocates filed lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage laws in several other states, and opponents responded by proposing state and federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its attendant benefits must be extended to same-sex couples. Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution, and on Feb. 4, a judge in Manhattan ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. That ruling applies only in the city but could extend statewide if upheld on appeal. Similar cases are pending in trial courts in Connecticut and Maryland.
Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays and lesbians from marrying violates their civil rights. A New Jersey judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by seven gay couples fighting to have their unions legally recognized. Most recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals in January upheld that state's gay marriage ban. All the cases are on appeal.
The California lawsuits have been closely watched. The state has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in voluntarily providing gay couples the perks of marriage without a court order.
Since Jan. 1, same-sex couples registering as domestic partners in California are granted virtually all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, including access to divorce courts, the ability to collect child support and the responsibility for a partner's debts. So in California, the arguments for striking down the gay marriage ban have centered as much on the social meaning of marriage as the benefits it affords as a legal institution.
The couples, represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights (search), the Lambda Legal (search) and the American Civil Liberties Union (search), conceded that California's domestic partnership law may be the strongest in the nation outside of Vermont's civil unions. But they claimed it still does not go far enough because it creates a separate and inherently unequal marriage-like institution for same-sex couples.
The Attorney General's Office maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Lockyer also cited the state's domestic partners law (search) as evidence that California does not discriminate against gays.
Kramer rejected that argument, citing Brown vs. Board of Education (search), the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down segregated schools.
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts � separate but equal," the judge wrote.
Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California Families (search) and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund (search), argued that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Summer internship deadline March 1, 2005).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright � 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Beta6
Commander
Joined: 02 Jan 2005
Posts: 475
Location: ~*City Of Angels*~
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:45 pm |
|
owch, that really sucks! O well!
|
|
|
trek4of9
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 04 Mar 2005
Posts: 92
Location: Florida, USA
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:47 pm |
|
Awesome good news! Thanks for posting JanewayIsHott! I get all my best news from the World News threads!
|
|
|
Link, the Hero of Time
Vice Admiral
Joined: 15 Sep 2001
Posts: 5581
Location: Kokori Forest, Hyrule
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:56 pm |
|
Good news.
And the Judge is right, the historical definition of marriage cannot be the sole thing that decideds that same-sex marriage is illegal.
-------signature-------
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." President Thomas Jefferson
"A man's respect for law and order exists in precise relationship to the size of his paycheck." Adam Clayton Powell Jr.
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:10 pm |
|
That some people want to pass constitutional amendments to take civil rights away from people makes me incredibly sad. No matter what your personal beliefs, homosexuals marrying one another doesn't hurt anybody. Why would you want to go to so much trouble to ban it?
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:35 pm |
|
| Quote: | Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage
By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional - a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
Diane Sabin, left, kisses her partner Jewelle Gomez at City Hall in San Francisco, Monday, March 14, 2005. Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Sabin and Gomez were among the 12 same-sex Bay Area plaintiffs. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.
The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay couples a year ago after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week same-sex marriage spree started by Mayor Gavin Newsom.
The opinion had been eagerly awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground.
Gay marriage supporters hailed the ruling as a historic development akin to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.
"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.
Conservative leaders expressed outrage at the ruling and vowed to appeal.
"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver. "This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country.
Last winter, nearly 4,000 gay couples got married after Newsom instructed the city to issue them licenses, in defiance of state law. The California Supreme Court later declared those marriages void, saying the mayor overstepped his authority. But the court did not address the underlying issue of whether the law against gay marriage violates the California Constitution.
At issue were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a voter-approved measure in 2000 that amended the law to say more explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The state maintained that tradition dictates that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples. Attorney General Bill Lockyer also cited the state's domestic-partners law as evidence that California does not discriminate against gays.
But Kramer rejected that argument, citing Brown v. Board of Education - the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down segregated schools.
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts - separate but equal," the judge wrote.
It could be months or years before the state actually sanctions same-sex marriage, if ever.
Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.
Two bills now before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.
The decision is the latest development in a national debate that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional.
In the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay rights advocates filed lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage laws in several other states. Opponents responded by proposing state and federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.
Around the country, Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its benefits must be extended to same-sex couples.
Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution, and on Feb. 4, a New York City judge ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the city.
Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays from marrying violates their civil rights.
California has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in providing gay couples the benefits of marriage without being forced to do so by court order. |
I know many people won't be happy but in the end this will be good everyone need equal rights.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:57 pm |
|
I'm afraid that RM's going to bite me on this one, but oh well.  I'm not a gay activist (Obviously) nor do I like the idea (News? No.) however, I have come to the conclusion that if someone wants to believe that marrying that of the same sex is okay, then that is their choice. We were placed on earth to make choices for ourselves, not for other people. I choose to acknowledge marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Some people see it differently. Oh well. I'll continue believing what I believe and promoting that best I can, and the rest of the world can live as it likes.
"Master, how are you going to change the world?"
"How about I let the world live as it chooses, and I live as I choose?"
~Richard Bach, "Illusions"
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:59 pm |
|
It doesnt matter to me eather way, I dont like the idea that Consitutional law is being made aganets this
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:59 pm |
|
Simply put: This is bad news.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:03 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Simply put: This is bad news. |
why? don't those people who decide to live differently than anyone else derseve the same right? they are american they do have the right to peace and happiness. its wrong of us to say they shouldn't marry if they like men instead of women or woman instead of men. I see this as a major step forword in equal rights for everyone.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:06 pm |
|
I have a novel idea! Let's allow poligamy, child to adult marriage (as young as 5), incestual marriage, and more! The people love each other, don't they? Why not allow them to marry, too? You can't give me a good reason to oppose allowing this while permitting gay marriage.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:09 pm |
|
It's not going to get rid of the people and the idea. You can't destroy that. They're going to make the choice whether we agree with it or not, and they are free to make that choice. You are also free to retaliate by any means you deem necessary. What matters in this life? You, and the choices you make. What matters in their lives? Them and the choices they make.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:12 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | It's not going to get rid of the people and the idea. You can't destroy that. They're going to make the choice whether we agree with it or not, and they are free to make that choice. You are also free to retaliate by any means you deem necessary. What matters in this life? You, and the choices you make. What matters in their lives? Them and the choices they make. |
You know what? If we follow that logic (which would permit ALL forms of marriage), then there will be NO POINT to marriage. We HAVE to allow ALL forms of marriage if we allow one alternative, and yet if we did, that would absolutely defeat marriage. I would lose confidence in it entirely, and never get married myself because it would be worthless.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:12 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I have a novel idea! Let's allow poligamy, child to adult marriage (as young as 5), incestual marriage, and more! The people love each other, don't they? Why not allow them to marry, too? You can't give me a good reason to oppose allowing this while permitting gay marriage. |
How is it you come to this if we allow equal rights to gay couples? there are poligimal couples already its not legal but there is. Your saying thats gay couples fault? Child to adult marriage that already is happening look at woody allen and his wife his stepdaughter I think it is. thats gay couples fault? Incestual marriage I don't know if this has happened yet but I know its illigal if it has. So to be honest you can't use this as a reason for allowing gays to marry. since its already out there. There is no reason to blame them they are not to blame for what happens in this world.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:14 pm |
|
| Jeff Miller wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | I have a novel idea! Let's allow poligamy, child to adult marriage (as young as 5), incestual marriage, and more! The people love each other, don't they? Why not allow them to marry, too? You can't give me a good reason to oppose allowing this while permitting gay marriage. |
How is it you come to this if we allow equal rights to gay couples? there are poligimal couples already its not legal but there is. Your saying thats gay couples fault? Child to adult marriage that already is happening look at woody allen and his wife his stepdaughter I think it is. thats gay couples fault? Incestual marriage I don't know if this has happened yet but I know its illigal if it has. So to be honest you can't use this as a reason for allowing gays to marry. since its already out there. There is no reason to blame them they are not to blame for what happens in this world. |
Did I SAY that? NO. I'm saying that if you legalize gay marriage then you have to legalize ALL forms of marriage. And as of now, those that break the law with marriage should be prosecuted--no matter what type of marriage.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:14 pm |
|
That would be your choice. I would still view marriage just as I wanted to see it, and put faith in it because of what it means to me. Should it mean less if an atheist marries, because they aren't Christian...? No, not unless you believe it does.
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:16 pm |
|
I think that its logical that we won't accept child to adult marriage well in this country atleast it just seem logical to give a couple who loves eachother if they are of legal age the right to marry no matter what their gender is. We have to move beyond the physical appearence of couples and accept them for who they are.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:16 pm |
|
| Exalya wrote: | | That would be your choice. I would still view marriage just as I wanted to see it, and put faith in it because of what it means to me. Should it mean less if an atheist marries, because they aren't Christian...? No, not unless you believe it does. |
No. Religion doesn't play a role in the legal sanctity of marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman that love each other and are usually going to reproduce. It is a legality not to be abused. It is something to be kept, not diminished and pointless. If all forms of marriage are legalized, then marriage will have no meaning whatsoever.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:17 pm |
|
But you know, my voice is clearly going unheard and everyone is against me, so it is pointless debating a topic in which the other side obviously means little. It's trivial. I will now stop.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:18 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Exalya wrote: | | That would be your choice. I would still view marriage just as I wanted to see it, and put faith in it because of what it means to me. Should it mean less if an atheist marries, because they aren't Christian...? No, not unless you believe it does. |
No. Religion doesn't play a role in the legal sanctity of marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman that love each other and are usually going to reproduce. It is a legality not to be abused. It is something to be kept, not diminished and pointless. If all forms of marriage are legalized, then marriage will have no meaning whatsoever. |
If it has to be legal for you to believe it has meaning, then you have every right to speak out about gay marriage. Personally, I believe marriage, like any institution, is only worth the faith and depth you place in it yourself. But that's just me.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:22 pm |
|
Again,
| Republican_Man wrote: | | But you know, my voice is clearly going unheard and everyone is against me, so it is pointless debating a topic in which the other side obviously means little. It's trivial. I will now stop. |
I rest my case.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:25 pm |
|
You say it, but you don't mean it,
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:25 pm |
|
People aren't against you, they just reached a different conclusion than you did, and you apparently find that offensive. I know you don't like it, but simply put, banning gay marriage is unconstitutuional. And in my opininion, it restricts people of their basic right of the persuit of happiness, when there is absolutly no good reason to do so.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:27 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | People aren't against you, they just reached a different conclusion than you did, and you apparently find that offensive. I know you don't like it, but simply put, banning gay marriage is unconstitutuional. And in my opininion, it restricts people of their basic right of the persuit of happiness. |
Actually, it's not unconstitutional and I do not find other views offensive. I just find attacks at me offensive, but I also see that fighting a battle that I am ENTIRELY alone against is now, effectively, pointless. There, I am done. I just wanted to reply to that attack.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:28 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | People aren't against you, they just reached a different conclusion than you did, and you apparently find that offensive. I know you don't like it, but simply put, banning gay marriage is unconstitutuional. And in my opininion, it restricts people of their basic right of the persuit of happiness, when there is absolutly no good reason to do so. |
Well put I'm not against RM either I just want to get my point out. simply put.  peace and happiness to everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
