Comments on California Gay Marriage Ruling

Spectacular!

Yay!!

great news!

It was a 4-3 decision and we here in CA are still parsing the details. But it's a BIG win.

The fight isn't over yet - the bigots have qualified a constitutional amendment banning equal marriage for the November ballot. But I am confident we can win that fight.

Yay gays!

HELL YES! Now when will Washington finally make the step from partnerships to marriage? Hopefully we won't blow it again like we did in 2006...

/zzz

Suck my gay marrying ass Rev Hutch

Woo-hoo!

Yay! Let the games begin... C'mon, California, strike down that ballot measure!

Whew!

I found myself holding my breath when I read the headline.

I'm 11 pages into the case right now...and for law nerds, gays got strict scrutiny and California decided there is no compelling state interest in having a difference between civil unions and marriage. Yay!

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

Here's a link to the opinion. You may want to skip forward to the last full paragraph on p. 120.

Oh, Mr. Poe....

Hoo boy this November is going to be exiting. Massive turnout is going to rock California and rock the whole country. I've been waiting a long time for this.

Hurray!

Now move on to something more relevant?

Thank goodness.

So does this mean California gay couples can start lining up now for marriage licenses?

[big sigh]

Wow. I feared the worst; Cali's supremes are a pretty right-wing bunch these days. And it was a narrow decision. But a decision it was. It's great news.

This will energize the kooks in November a little, but, since they don't have anyplace to go -- no kook candidate, as of yet -- I don't think it'll be much noticed in the hurricane of Democratic support.

Do watch as Republicans start grilling Obama on gay marriage fifty times a day, though.

See, inter-racial marriage is okay because no-one can choose their race.

But homosexuality is a choice!

Because when one looks at all the discrimination that gays face on daily basis (up to and including death by violence or dread disease), one can only conclude that homsexuals considered being straight and then decided that being gay would be more...fun?

Yeah, right, that's it.

Oh god no, now I'm going to have to turn into one those insufferable autonomon stepfords from the NY Times article last month. I'm happier being disreputable.

TT, this is relevant you douchebag. What possibly could be more relevant than this?

Here's hoping WA gets there one day.

@18
I think so - they told the clerks to act in accordance with their decision. Let the issuing begin!

@20: and thus has been my response since junior high: how is it a choice if it often leads to discrimination, harassment, etc? Who the fuck makes that choice?

Way to go, California! Please send the memo to Washington state while you're at it.

What I want to know is this: what's the gist of the initiative banning gay marriage and what's it based on, and how will this ruling affect that? Will this ruling render the initiative useless and unconstitutional? Because that would be awesome.

I am so proud to be a Californian.

wow. for a second this insane world seems sane.

@25: the initiative is a constitutional amendment, and would render the court's favorable decision null and void, unfortunately.

a word to those who think this decision is non-news... imagine that you have to leave the US because you can't marry your non-citizen partner. Then marriage is a big deal. State level decisions don't get us federal rights, but they do pave the path to them. So perhaps you should consider the interests of others for a change.

So, this will give a kick in the pants to the California wedding tourism industry!

San Francisco's going to be humming!

@25 Not that I want to somehow imply that I think homosexuality is a choice (I know from experience) but there are many groups that buck social norms for the sake making a statement, like Goths or Hipsters. The fact that gays (as a whole) are lumped into this category is a fallacy that needs to be proven false through more rulings like the one today.

@25,

I think that's what #20 was saying. Who would choose to endure that shit?

The constitutional amendment still has to bow to the federal Constitution, which does not yet have an amendment banning homosexual marriage. Since the court cited interracial marriage, the Californian constitutional amendment would have to do some damn fancy footwork to prove that it's not in the same realm as the federal decision.

Gay marriage is THE frontier for human rights in the developed world. Every one of us benefits hugely from each of these humanity boosting decisions.
That said, congratulations gays! Yay!

What are the odds that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage will pass in this fall's election in California?

This makes me very, very nervous. If the amendment passes, it will another generation before we have marriage equality.

I've read (from a news article, not the actual decision) that the court's ruling will take effect in 30 days, making it legal for a same-sex couple to get married in CA.

Hooray!!!!!!

I want a comment from the Chief Justice of the WA Supreme Court. This decision makes her look like a gutless fool.

Aw... those snippets from the ruling are awesome. Yay for judges using their power for good (I don't call them "activists" though, for the obvious reasons.)

The correct answer to "but it's a choice" argument is "so what". Being a Presbyterian is a choice, too, and they get to marry.

Odd that California's conservative justices can see truth and justice more clearly than Washington's flaccid liberal ones (Barbara Madsen, are you fucking listening, you fucking skank?)

@33 I can almost guarantee you that the US Sup's would affirm a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. I doubt Kennedy would step out on a limb on this issue.

Pastor Hutch is going to have the prayer warriors on their knees over this.

Hey Dan, since there's probably going to be a prop on the ballot in November to overturn the decision, where can we send our money to make sure that this doesn't get overturned?

I know the HRC is setting up a fund, but um, I kinda don't want to send my money to the HRC. Anywhere else you recommend? (If you say, "Send it to the HRC," I will.

This part? Is awesome. Emphasis mine.

In holding today that the right to marry guaranteed by the state Constitution may not be withheld from anyone on the ground of sexual orientation, this court discharges its gravest and most important responsibility under our constitutional form of government. There is a reason why the words “Equal Justice Under Law” are inscribed above the entrance to the courthouse of the United States Supreme Court. Both the federal and the state Constitutions guarantee to all the “equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const., 14th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 7), and it is the particular responsibility of the judiciary to enforce those guarantees. The architects of our federal and state Constitutions understood that widespread and
deeply rooted prejudices may lead majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups, and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection.

For law geeks, this is beautiful.

@43 truly my favorite justification for an strong and independent judiciary

I'm glad they took up the marriage vs civil union as a word issue.

It's clearly the word marriage that gets people panty twisted. Let's remove it! Civil unions for everybody.

I'm on record as having no problem with gay marriage. But the Wash. St. DOMA defines marriage as "between one man and one woman" to offset both gay marriage and polygamy. How does one feel about polygamy allowance for consenting adults the age of 18 and over? It technically was legal in the USA until 1879. I also agree with two things that have been said on this Slog. Obama will be grilled on it and the US Supreme Court won't uphold the California ruling.

Crazycatguy @ 37,

For a 1,000,000% accurate and thoroughly Bahbrah Wahltahs-style interview with Republican Party sleeper agent and future marriage equality homicide bomber “Justice” Barbara Madsen, click here:

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/a_very_special_interview_with_antimarria

In a similar vein of A Tale of Two Cities, her name has been added to a quilt of people who can suck it.

"the US Supreme Court won't uphold the California ruling."

?? the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over this....

@46 the California Supreme Court has final review on the California Constitution, no possiblilty for federal review unless the california constitution violates the federal constitution; which is an absurd position for this issue as there isn't a federal DOMA amendment.

46,

This ruling cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court, under what is called the "independent and adequate state law grounds" doctrine.

Short version: the US Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to review decisions of state supreme courts that rest on state law grounds, and not federal law grounds.

If you're a state supreme court and your goal is to insulate a ruling from the USSC, the best thing to do is simply rule on state statutory or constitutional grounds, particularly - as here - where state law is more protective of individual liberties.

The issue here, as others have noted, is that the California Constitution can be amended by initiative.

Should we here in WA follow the roadmap laid out in CA - domestic partnership law, expanding it, then a suit just to change the name from "domestic partnership" to "marriage," - we're in better shape, because, the WA constitution cannot be amended by initiative.

@50 looking forward to con law next year

Yawn. Gays are boring. Next.

Another case of that vile "gay agenda" perverting the great state of California.

You know that "agenda", right? The evil premise that "All men are created equal"? (Some of us just have nicer asses & bigger dicks.)

How dare those gays think they can be normal people! Before you know it, they'll want to use the same bathrooms and water fountains as us "breeders".

So, basically, you have five months to get married - and then force contracts.

Once you get lawyers involved, it's hard to undo things.

while I am all for this I do wish it would have happened this November after the general election. that way maybe the kooks would just stay home since they dont like Mccain.

@34 wrt to whether the fall ballot initiative will pass... in MA after the gays were married for a while and we didn't fall into an abyss of darkness, there was less support for the ballot initiative and it died. Once gay couples were getting married, they became more visible and people became less afraid of them and the threat they posed to the marriages of the fearful.

The press changed too, from photos of flamboyant pride marchers who would make a mockery of your marriage to photos of happy gay families that would be destroyed if the ballot passed.

This is great! I only hope that Sen. Obama has the political courage to stand behind this decision when he will be inevitably grilled by the RNC and McCain. If not, then color me disappointed.

Mickey in AR @ 55,

Relax. There was a similar fear in 2006 when the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a strong pro-equality ruling and then we had the nationwide Blue Wave, one of the biggest Democratic victories in a generation.

The Republicans have fucked up the country so badly that people have lots more to worry about besides two dudes or two laydeez gettin' hitched.

We need to focus on defeating the CA constitutional amendment in November.

Not even you referencing Andrew Sullivan can ruin this moment!

Extending access to the designation of marriage to same-sex couples will not deprive any opposite-sex couple or their children of any of the rights and benefits conferred by the marriage statutes, but simply will make the benefit of the marriage designation available to same-sex couples and their children.

It will also increase the amount of $$$ the state can collect from license fees. Bigger pool of candidates, more money.

Yay! You guys are going to catch right up to Canada at this rate!

Although I had hoped that a few more people would move here in protest of discriminatory laws. But having you as happy neighbours is the next best thing!

Yays all around!

This decision is made of win.