California Marriage Ruling Tomorrow?

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's the link to Box Turtle Bulletin

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/05/14/2010

Please check out the link within the article---it refers to earlier reporting by Box Turtle. This is really promising--but as they suggest, it could lead to a big fight in California. Like we really need another big fight!!

Steven Webster

[keltic63]

I caught some report of that over at Good As You. Promising legislation? could marriage be an option for Californians? Let's hope so!

[Rick336]

If the California Supreme Court allows same sex marriage, some say it may have an effect on the presidential election. Some believe Mayor Newsome's decision in 2004 to allow gay marriages in San Francisco tilted the election in Bush's favor. Others disagree.

But, as Mayor Newsome has stated before about gay marriage, if not now, when? When exactly is the best time?

I really admire Newsome for standing by his principles.

If the California court allows same sex marriage tomorrow, it will a be milestone in LGBT history. If you can find a California newspaper Friday, buy it and save it.

Rick

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Here's the scoop:

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2008/05/51508----the-ma.html#more

This looks pretty official--scroll down and see the notice. The opinion will be filed tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m.

If the news is really good for us, the backlash may be something else!

Steven Webster

[tdogg]

Wow, the decision will be tomorrow. Cool. Thought they might wait until the first of June. From what I heard of the hearings a few months ago, it went better for those in favor of same sex marriage, but will be interesting to see what the justices came up with.

No matter what their ruling is, we have to fight the anti-gay initiative that will be on the November ballet, making a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Should that pass, it would pretty much render tomorrow's supreme court decision useless. Those in CA who want to help fight the anti-gay initiative, check out equalityforall.com. They are gearing up for action.

I am looking forward to hearing what our justices have to say.

[Jamie McDaniel]

If you can find a California newspaper Friday, buy it and save it.

Here's hoping. If the ruling is positive, even if you don't live in California, buy a newspaper. :rainbow:

[Jamie McDaniel]

CNN initially reported that gay couples would be disappointed with the decision but...

Here is the opinion:

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

I'm looking at the opinion (it is like 150+ pages) and I found...

"Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples."

And

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.

Update: CNN is now reporting that California Supreme Court overturns ban on same-sex marriage!

[Emproph]

CNN initially reported that gay couples would be disappointed with the decision but...

Thanks for the update Jamie, the mixed messages freaked me out for a moment there...
--
Autumn Sandeen at Pam's House Blend put together a pretty comprehensive report here for anyone who's interested.

California Supreme Court Ruling: Thumbs UP On Marriage Equality (http://pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5398)

As Pam notes, the anti-gays will be crawling out of the woodwork in short order. (those are my words btw)

I for one, am looking forward to this particular, bumpy, but fun ride. http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/4_2_105.gif

[Vanessa White]

The tides are turning, I find it almost impossible to believe, but so is the difference between law v. politics v. religion.

At least, some of the time.........:rolleyes:

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:weee::ap arty:

[Zerbie]

Yes, the tide is turning. Or more aptly, turned. My guess is it probably turned a short handful of years ago (maybe somewhere between Lawrence v Texas and the first voter- de-railed marriage amendment vote in 2006.)

Time to buckle up snug and tight for the backlash. Expect CA to be a talking point in PA, AZ, and anyplace else considering a marriage amendment. I've already gotten the alert from our local anti-gays that the CA decision is 'proof' that we need a constitutional amendment. Their talking point is that the judges are interfering with "your right" to vote to "protect" marriage. It's amazing to me that anyone swallows such a descriptor. Who views it as a voter's right to deny civil rights and equal protection to others in their community?? :confused: Seems to me that we could find a way to make that point and frame it simply and appealingly to get across our message. Emproph?

[NathanATX]

This is unbelievably exciting! I wrote a blog about it earlier... http://blog.myspace.com/nathanatx

"Go West young man, haven't you been told... California's full of whiskey, husbands and gold..." :D

[tdogg]

Now, we buckle up, rev our engines and get ready for the race of a lifetime. Coming November to a voting booth in your CA neighborhood!

I'm ready....! :D:weee::rainbow:

[Emproph]

Now, we buckle up, rev our engines and get ready for the race of a lifetime. Coming November to a voting booth in your CA neighborhood!

I'm ready....! :D:weee::rainbow:

You gay folk need to get married as many times as possible in the interum, just in case our brothers and sinisters happen to get away with their constitutional usurpation of the golden rule in your state.

'Not sure quite what that means, but SUE ME, I'm giddy - and I don't even live in California!

Wait a minite, I don't live in California. I have no further emotional interest in how this all turns out.

Well then. I had a lovely day everyone. I feel privileged to have shared it with you all...

Blah blah this...
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/bitchcrafts/more/peace3side.jpg

Blah blah that...
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2/bitchcrafts/more/0000200.gif

Ok, I really can't top that last one.

[Emproph]

This is your brain:
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd292/Stasibasiphobic/Anxiety.jpg

And this is your brain on California equality:
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/smiley-dream.jpg

Any questions?

[Emproph]

Written by Matt Coles Thursday, May 15, 2008

We won the marriage case in California (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/californiamarriage.html). No need for hyperbole here; this is big; big in terms of what it does, big in terms of what it means, and big in terms of the opportunity for progress it gives us (I’ll suggest some of the ways to take advantage of that opportunity below).

Simply having the California Supreme Court say that constitutional principles demand that marriage be open to same-sex couples is an enormous win. This Court has a remarkable history of leadership on civil rights and civil liberties. It made landmark decisions on race and sex discrimination, on freedom of speech and privacy, and on treatment of the disabled and poor people long before the U.S. Supreme Court. No court in America has more authority to say that marriage for same-sex couples is an issue of basic freedom than this one.

And as the New York Times recently pointed out, the California Supreme Court is the most influential state high court in America. If you'd like to read it, here’s the decision (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/35332lgl20080515.html).

Marriage in California will transform the discussion of marriage nationwide. California has one of the largest economies in the world. Given the state’s economic clout, the fact that California is marrying same-sex couples will put considerable pressure on the rest of the country to recognize those marriages.

Even more important, the rest of the country recognizes that California is America’s cultural trendsetter, that cultural change in California is usually a preview of what is to come in the rest of the United States. Most Americans already believe that marriage for same-sex couples is bound to happen sooner or later. I think marriage in California will help persuade many of them that this is an issue of basic fairness, and that the time for it is now.

This was a prize of inestimable value.

Now, of course, we have to hold on to it. It appears fairly certain that anti-gay forces have gotten enough signatures to put on the November ballot an initiative that would amend the state Constitution and overrule the decision.

That initiative is scary. We lost a different vote on marriage only eight years ago. And our opponents, recognizing that marriage in California is a great prize, will fight with all their might. They’ll put everything they have into this. Which means that to win, we’ll have to raise a great deal of money and run a very smart campaign.

While we can’t discount how difficult and nerve-wracking it will be to fight the initiative, we can win. If ever a state was well prepared for a vote on marriage, it is California. LGBT rights work has been going on there since the 50s, and we’ve been establishing rights for same-sex couples since the 80s.

And we can’t forget how much greater the prize will be if we win. If we win the initiative, marriage in California will have a popular stamp of approval. No more will our opponents be able to call marriage the child of “activist judges” or out-of-control local officials. The court has given us the chance to win marriage for ourselves, and push the fight for full equality ahead by years. We’ve got to rise to meet that challenge.

We all need to support the initiative campaign. But that’s not all we should do. We need to take advantage of the cultural change this decision will help create. If you work for a company that doesn’t recognize domestic partners, you should change that. If you live in a city without a domestic partnership registry, you should change that (http://gbge.aclu.org/content/view/261/76/content/blogcategory/73/60/). If you live in a state where a marriage or civil union law is possible (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/marriage.html), you should join the effort. And if you live in a place where recognition of same-sex relationships seems too ambitious, get a local nondiscrimination law (http://gbge.aclu.org/content/view/261/76/content/view/21/52/), or a nondiscrimination policy (http://gbge.aclu.org/content/view/261/76/content/view/21/52/) from your employer. Its easy. Just click (http://www.aclu.org/getequal).

And for a moment, let’s just revel in one of the greatest wins in our history.

How sweet it is.

Matt Coles
Director, ACLU LGBT & AIDS Project

[Emproph]

November ballot measure could halt same-sex marriage revelry (http://www.examiner.com/a-1396026~November_ballot_measure_could_halt_same_se x_marriage_revelry.html?cid=temp-popular)

As far as the title goes, we already know that much, but they made an interesting point:
One factor that could influence whether a same-sex marriage ban could pass in November is which candidates end up running for the White House.
---
David Karol, an assistant politics professor at UC Berkeley, said that Obama would bring out young voters, who are more tolerant of gay marriage, although the black senator would also draw out blacks, who are less so.
Also to watch out for:
Same-sex marriage opponents have said they will ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election.
More on that here (warning, anti-gay):
http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=687
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, has argued the California marriage case at every stage of the litigation.
And this was part of his argument -- in regard to this ruling -- in front of the Supreme Court a few months back:
Same-sex relations will not accidentally, unintentionally, in an unplanned fashion, produce children.http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x269/Emproph/smiley_omgomgomg.gif