Gay marriage opponents vow to fight Calif. ruling

[peejay 327]

Gay marriage opponents vow to fight Calif. ruling By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 40 minutes ago

Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never again ring for gay couples in the nation's most populous state.

A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its Thursday decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.

If the court does not put its ruling on hold, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.

The Republican-dominated court's decision, which cited a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on interracial marriages, swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation.

The 4-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Gay marriage opponents, meanwhile, derided the ruling as an example of judicial overreaching in which the opinions of a few justices trumped the will of Californians.

"The remedy is a constitutional amendment," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay.

The last time the state's voters were asked to express their views on same-sex marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.

Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday struck down both statutes.

Still, backers of a proposed November ballot measure that would allow Californians to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage said the court's decision would ultimately help their cause.

"(The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups helping to underwrite the gay marriage ban campaign. "I do think it will activate and energize Californians. I'm more confident than ever that we will be able to pass this amendment come November."

Twenty-six states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

In the past few years, courts in New York, Maryland and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage, and New Jersey's highest court gave the state lawmakers the option of establishing civil unions as an alternative.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something it did in 2004. More than 9,500 same-sex couples in that state have wed. The California ruling is considered monumental because of the state's population — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million — and its historical role as the vanguard of many social and cultural changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 108,734 same-sex households, according to 2006 census figures.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told a roaring crowd at City Hall after the ruling was issued. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

The case was set in motion in 2004 when Newsom threw open City Hall to gay couples to get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four thousand wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights organizations.

Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office argued to uphold the ban, said Brown would "work with the governor and other state agencies to implement the ruling."

The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with the decision of this court."

By Thursday afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. The county clerk's office in Los Angeles issued a statement saying it was awaiting legal analysis of the ruling and a timeline for implementation.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors of the anti-gay marriage ballot measure gathered enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot.

Thursday's ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race, as well as state and congressional contests in California and beyond, by causing a backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large numbers.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Does anybody disagree with that?

[Sister Fracas 5]

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Does anybody disagree with that?

unfortunately loads of people...

DOn't you know...if a gay couple raises a child....GAAAAAAAAASP ...the child will be mentally disturbed and even....TURN GAY!!!! ZOMG!!!

[amerasianlove 0]

Every person has their own right...but this one is way too much,they get overboard.Sorry I dont agree with

gay marriage.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Every person has their own right...but this one is way too much,they get overboard.Sorry I dont agree with

gay marriage.

Then you don't really believe every person has their own right. "They" get overboard....as if "they" are people with some knid of disorder?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Every person has their own right...but this one is way too much,they get overboard.Sorry I dont agree with

gay marriage.

Then you don't really believe every person has their own right. "They" get overboard....as if "they" are people with some knid of disorder?

Humans can't live in harmony.

[peejay 327]

Every person has their own right...but this one is way too much,they get overboard.Sorry I dont agree with

gay marriage.

Then you don't really believe every person has their own right. "They" get overboard....as if "they" are people with some knid of disorder?

Homosexuals have an orientation that is tolerated by most in the USA, but many people do not wish to bestow societal and cultural legitimacy on homosexuality that the institution of marriage conveys. Homosexuals in the USA want the state seal of approval and society's acceptance of an orientation that most of the world finds culturally and biologically unacceptable.

Homosexuals can already do most of what heterosexuals do through marriage. The whole thing boils down to forcing societal and cultural acceptance that most do not wish to extend to homosexuality. It also boils down to a cultural war between conservatives and liberals that transends the homosexuality issue. Hence, the support of homosexuality by mostly white liberal wealthy heterosexuals that also support a whole menu of other typically liberal causes. Homosexuality being just one.

[pedroh 21]

remember if you legalize gay marriage.. all kids will turn gay, and crazy people will marry their dog, or a cow, or a bull..

gay marriage is the same as zoophilia or other crazy sh!t, according to the smart arguments against it

[Niels Bohr 72]

remember if you legalize gay marriage.. all kids will turn gay, and crazy people will marry their dog, or a cow, or a bull..

gay marriage is the same as zoophilia or other crazy sh!t, according to the smart arguments against it

Freedom of choice. Are people gay because they choose to be gay, or are they gay because they're confused, OR are they gay because they were born that way, or are they gay because they want to experience another lifestyle?

I know I am gay. But, gay as in happy.

[almaty 19]

remember if you legalize gay marriage.. all kids will turn gay, and crazy people will marry their dog, or a cow, or a bull..

gay marriage is the same as zoophilia or other crazy sh!t, according to the smart arguments against it

and even worse than that hermano..they may marry an illegal!!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I'll bet if they got enough Californians together, they could pass amendment to the CA Constitution that defines marriage as being between two ivory colored people.

[Sister Fracas 5]

remember if you legalize gay marriage.. all kids will turn gay, and crazy people will marry their dog, or a cow, or a bull..

gay marriage is the same as zoophilia or other crazy sh!t, according to the smart arguments against it

and even worse than that hermano..they may marry an illegal!!!!

an illegal gay! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK! Yup, there is nothing left after an illegal gay than marrying yer goat. It's bound to happen...

[eekee 182]

Every person has their own right...but this one is way too much,they get overboard.Sorry I dont agree with

gay marriage.

Then you don't really believe every person has their own right. "They" get overboard....as if "they" are people with some knid of disorder?

Homosexuals have an orientation that is tolerated by most in the USA, but many people do not wish to bestow societal and cultural legitimacy on homosexuality that the institution of marriage conveys. Homosexuals in the USA want the state seal of approval and society's acceptance of an orientation that most of the world finds culturally and biologically unacceptable.

Homosexuals can already do most of what heterosexuals do through marriage. The whole thing boils down to forcing societal and cultural acceptance that most do not wish to extend to homosexuality. It also boils down to a cultural war between conservatives and liberals that transends the homosexuality issue. Hence, the support of homosexuality by mostly white liberal wealthy heterosexuals that also support a whole menu of other typically liberal causes. Homosexuality being just one.

I would prefer if conservatives and religious fundamentalists would stop pushing their agendas that serve a god I do not believe in and are based on a book which I do not follow onto the rest of the country. But alas, I will never get my wish. And so what if it's a typically liberal cause? If it's liberal to believe that all humans, regardless of orientation, deserve the same rights, then I'd rather be a liberal than anything else.

The institution of marriage will not fall apart if same-sex couples get the same tax and other benefits that heterosexual couples do.

Edited May 16, 2008 by eekee

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's getting a bit old but here it is once again:

The forces of yesterday will fight as they always have.

And in the end they will lose as they always have.

[Sister Fracas 5]

I would prefer if conservatives and religious fundamentalists would stop pushing their agendas that serve a god I do not believe in and are based on a book which I do not follow onto the rest of the country. But alas, I will never get my wish. And so what if it's a typically liberal cause? If it's liberal to believe that all humans, regardless of orientation, deserve the same rights, then I'd rather be a liberal than anything else.

The institution of marriage will not fall apart if same-sex couples get the same tax and other benefits that heterosexual couples do.

As Almaty would say....you are indeed right (or should that be "left") thinking.