PDA

View Full Version : California gay-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional


|Zach|
03-14-2005, 07:30 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

Eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed


SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.

Robert Tyler, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said the group would appeal Kramer's ruling.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

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 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. (Full story)

In a hearing in December, Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro acknowledged that California is "a leader in affording rights" to same-sex couples. But he maintained that the state has a defensible reason for upholding the existing definition of marriage as part of an important tradition.

"State law says there is a fundamental right to marry," he told Kramer. "We concede that. State law also says marriage is a contract between a man and a woman."

But a deputy city attorney, Therese Stewart, criticized "the so-called tradition argument," saying the meaning of marriage has evolved over time. As examples, she cited now-overturned bans on marriage by interracial couples, or laws that treated wives as a husband's property.

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 February 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.

Bwana
03-14-2005, 07:41 PM
A San Fancisco judge made that ruling...........NO WAY!!

keg in kc
03-14-2005, 07:42 PM
We're going to hell in a handbasket, I tell you.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 08:04 PM
WOW.

A judge in San Francisco. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. :rolleyes:

Wake me up when the US Supreme Court does the same. Then we'll begin seriously lobbying for the Constitutional amendment.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 08:06 PM
A San Fancisco judge made that ruling...........NO WAY!!

Absolutely SHOCKING I tell you!!! :eek:

To be fair, now we should take the same law before a Orange County judge of MY choosing. Heh.

|Zach|
03-14-2005, 08:09 PM
Rob, I hope your life and your family's lives turned alright today. I mean its not the supreme court but it is a small move in a wave that is forcing beliefs on you. Maybe your house hold just felt a small amount of pressure. ROFL

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 08:13 PM
Rob, I hope your life and your family's lives turned alright today. I mean its not the supreme court but it is a small move in a wave that is forcing beliefs on you. Maybe your house hold just felt a small amount of pressure. ROFL

My butthole did pucker when I read this.

Cochise
03-14-2005, 08:14 PM
My butthole did pucker when I read this.

It can still do that? :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 08:19 PM
It can still do that? :hmmm:

Nice... ROFL

Mr. Laz
03-14-2005, 08:23 PM
the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely.


established civil unions for everyone and then let the churches decide about marriage.



church <----------seperation-----------> state

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 08:28 PM
the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely.


established civil unions for everyone and then let the churches decide about marriage.



church <----------seperation-----------> state

I'd go along with that; the "movement" would probably oppose it though...because it would perpetuate their status as "second class citizens" :rolleyes:

Mr. Laz
03-14-2005, 08:49 PM
I'd go along with that; the "movement" would probably oppose it though...because it would perpetuate their status as "second class citizens" :rolleyes:

their??

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 09:03 PM
their??

The gay rights movement....

keg in kc
03-14-2005, 09:22 PM
the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely.


established civil unions for everyone and then let the churches decide about marriage.



church <----------seperation-----------> stateYep.

Mr. Laz
03-14-2005, 09:27 PM
The gay rights movement....
oh... well maybe


but it will be the church that "they" have the beef with. as far as the government is concern they will have a civil union just like everyone else.

government gives nothing but civil unions to anyone.


let the gay rights movement and the church fight it out


the government should side step this one

Taco John
03-14-2005, 10:00 PM
I'd go along with that; the "movement" would probably oppose it though...because it would perpetuate their status as "second class citizens" :rolleyes:



I think you're wrong. I think that if they are given the same equity that straight couples are given, reasonable people will be happy with it. They'll obviously always call it what they want to call it. But who cares so long as legally the government recognizes them equally.

I've never once heard a gay person argue that they demand the government call their union a "gay marraige." I think this is a straw man argument that the looniest, most homophobic set on the far right construct in order to knock the "enemy" down as completely unreasonable on the subject.

I think there's an entire element that you are missing here, and that is there are children involved in many of these unions... Yes, they are non-traditional family units, but they are family nonetheless. And they go through struggles like any other family goes through.

Let God take care of them if what they are doing is wrong. It's not Uncle Sam's place to keep their family on any lesser plane than any other family just because of the predjudice of the majority. They should have just as much right to ratify their union as anyone else does.

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 07:52 AM
TJ, why is it that you apparently don't understand the difference between strict constuctionist judicial philosophy, and loose constructionist judicial philosophy....which are historically recognized and reasonable disagreements as to the proper role of the courts. The Constitution's (and even common law's) position on the issue is anything but clear.

Why is it, anyone who DARES to disagree with you is either a "far right wing wacko, a scary individual, or homophobic people who are using a "straw man" argument"....what utter and complete baloney.

Dude, reasonable people can disagree...I accept that you do; why must you be so intolerent and demeaning toward others who are equally heartfelt in their disagreement with you. Seriously, why is that so difficult for you?

Logical
03-15-2005, 01:06 PM
the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely.


established civil unions for everyone and then let the churches decide about marriage.



church <----------seperation-----------> state

Now I could go along with that. Only Churches marry. Government licenses civil unions. Actually unlike Robb I can see the religious right being just as negative about such a solution as the Gay community. I am sure there would spring up Churches that would marry Gays, and a whole new uproar would result.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2005, 01:41 PM
Now I could go along with that. Only Churches marry. Government licenses civil unions. Actually unlike Robb I can see the religious right being just as negative about such a solution as the Gay community. I am sure there would spring up Churches that would marry Gays, and a whole new uproar would result.
yep.. i would imagine that certain factions on either side would bitch.... :shrug:

but i don't really care

let the far religious right and the extreme gay activists fight amongst themselves.


at least reasonable people can move on about this issue.


government is NOT in the religion business and the concept of marriage is almost completely a Bible issue.

Logical
03-15-2005, 03:08 PM
yep.. i would imagine that certain factions on either side would bitch.... :shrug:

but i don't really care

let the far religious right and the extreme gay activists fight amongst themselves.


at least reasonable people can move on about this issue.


government is NOT in the religion business and the concept of marriage is almost completely a Bible issue.:thumb:

Taco John
03-15-2005, 06:24 PM
TJ, why is it that you apparently don't understand the difference between strict constuctionist judicial philosophy, and loose constructionist judicial philosophy....which are historically recognized and reasonable disagreements as to the proper role of the courts. The Constitution's (and even common law's) position on the issue is anything but clear.

Why is it, anyone who DARES to disagree with you is either a "far right wing wacko, a scary individual, or homophobic people who are using a "straw man" argument"....what utter and complete baloney.

Dude, reasonable people can disagree...I accept that you do; why must you be so intolerent and demeaning toward others who are equally heartfelt in their disagreement with you. Seriously, why is that so difficult for you?


Because no one can answer the question. This debate gets hashed over in La-La land where desperation has taken over while people scramble to make it OK to discriminate against a group of people who "the majority" does not approve of. It's ridiculous and it's wrong. You are right that reasonable people can disagree. I just disagree with you that you think you are being so reasonable on the issue. But let's find out. I'm willing to give you the benefit of a doubt.

I'm told that most people would be happy with "Civil Unions."
It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with civil unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed. What problem do you have with that?

jcl-kcfan2
03-15-2005, 08:16 PM
I thought the amendment had to go through a "constitutionality test" and found to be under the auspices of the constitution before it was put on a ballot.

If so, the judge is ruling against a ruling that was already made.

Valiant
03-15-2005, 08:29 PM
the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely.


established civil unions for everyone and then let the churches decide about marriage.



church <----------seperation-----------> state



agree 100%...

Mr. Kotter
03-15-2005, 08:33 PM
...I'm told that most people would be happy with "Civil Unions." It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with civil unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed. What problem do you have with that?

I've answered this a while back on one of the threads (you said you suspected I was lying). Personally, I have no real problem with "civil unions"--seriously. Precise parameters would have to be determined...eg, non-salaried benefits for gay spouses, medical insurance, power of attorney etc (which in my mind ought to be determined at the state level), but if MA or CA wish to give them....fine.

"Marriage" is the sticking point, and seems to be a concession the "gay marriage" crowd is unwilling to concede. Unless they wake up, it could be the hill they die on.

Taco John
03-16-2005, 02:51 AM
"Marriage" is the sticking point, and seems to be a concession the "gay marriage" crowd is unwilling to concede. Unless they wake up, it could be the hill they die on.


This is the straw man that I speak of. What do you mean that "Marriage" is the sticking point? If the government embraces a civil union model where every union is seen equally under the law, how does the term "Marriage" become a sticking point?

I have no idea what you mean that "Marriage" is a sticking point that the "gay marriage" crowd is unwilling to conceed. What does this even mean?

Once they are legally defined on equal footing, what role does the government have in enforcing what people call the unions after that? It becomes a cultural debate that the government should stay out of.

I see this part of your argument that i see as the weakest part because it doesn't coherently connect with anything Constitutional or otherwise. Once you call them Civil Unions and then give them equal footing in the law, what does it matter to Uncle Sam what the individuals call their union?

Ari Chi3fs
03-16-2005, 03:06 AM
the government needs to get out of the marriage business completely.


established civil unions for everyone and then let the churches decide about marriage.



church <----------seperation-----------> state


This man is a genious.

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2005, 06:48 AM
This is the straw man that I speak of. What do you mean that "Marriage" is the sticking point? If the government embraces a civil union model where every union is seen equally under the law, how does the term "Marriage" become a sticking point?

I have no idea what you mean that "Marriage" is a sticking point that the "gay marriage" crowd is unwilling to conceed. What does this even mean?

Once they are legally defined on equal footing, what role does the government have in enforcing what people call the unions after that? It becomes a cultural debate that the government should stay out of.

I see this part of your argument that i see as the weakest part because it doesn't coherently connect with anything Constitutional or otherwise. Once you call them Civil Unions and then give them equal footing in the law, what does it matter to Uncle Sam what the individuals call their union?

It's really not complicated:

Civil Unions are NOT the same as "marriage" for many of us. Period.

Taco John
03-16-2005, 02:36 PM
Actually, you are the one making it complicated. Nobody said that marraige and civil unions are the same thing. A marraige is a religious right. A civil union is a governmental definition.

What you are showing is how unreasonble you are in this situation. You say that "Marraige" is a sticking point that the "gay marraige" community isn't willing to conceed. But when I ask you to put your money where your mouth is, you respond with some junk about it not being all that complicated.

I will ask again... Please try to stay on target...

I'm told that most people would be happy with "Civil Unions."
It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with civil unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed. What problem do you have with that?

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2005, 03:50 PM
........will ask again... Please try to stay on target...

I'm told that most people would be happy with "Civil Unions."
It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with civil unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed. What problem do you have with that?

I no problems with it as you have presented it.


I won't have any problems with it either, unless they start trying to call it "marriage." I'd be perfectly fine with ALL government sactioned unions in a particular state be called "civil unions." As you point out, marriage is a religious rite between a man and woman--and it should stay that way, IMHO.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 04:11 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

Eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed


SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.

Robert Tyler, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said the group would appeal Kramer's ruling.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

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 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. (Full story)

In a hearing in December, Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro acknowledged that California is "a leader in affording rights" to same-sex couples. But he maintained that the state has a defensible reason for upholding the existing definition of marriage as part of an important tradition.

"State law says there is a fundamental right to marry," he told Kramer. "We concede that. State law also says marriage is a contract between a man and a woman."

But a deputy city attorney, Therese Stewart, criticized "the so-called tradition argument," saying the meaning of marriage has evolved over time. As examples, she cited now-overturned bans on marriage by interracial couples, or laws that treated wives as a husband's property.

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 February 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.I always know right where to go for the latest in Gay news. :rolleyes:

|Zach|
03-16-2005, 04:14 PM
I always know right where to go for the latest in Gay news. :rolleyes:
According to some around here you shouldn't have to even read the news to notice something like this since all of these ideas and things are being forced on you.

Calcountry
03-16-2005, 04:42 PM
According to some around here you shouldn't have to even read the news to notice something like this since all of these ideas and things are being forced on you.OH I like it when its forced on me.

Don't be too mean though.:p

|Zach|
03-16-2005, 04:42 PM
OH I like it when its forced on me.

Don't be too mean though.:p
heh

Taco John
03-16-2005, 11:33 PM
I no problems with it as you have presented it.


I won't have any problems with it either, unless they start trying to call it "marriage." I'd be perfectly fine with ALL government sactioned unions in a particular state be called "civil unions." As you point out, marriage is a religious rite between a man and woman--and it should stay that way, IMHO.


I don't understand what it matters to you what "they" call it, or why you think you've got some sort of Constitutional claim against "them" calling it anything. But whatever. I don't find that particular part of the argument worthwhile because of how irrelevant it is. Once the government defines all unions as civil unions, they can call them "honeymoon hotdog bunners" for all I care. It doesn't matter to me.

Mr. Laz
03-17-2005, 05:01 PM
I no problems with it as you have presented it.


I won't have any problems with it either, unless they start trying to call it "marriage." I'd be perfectly fine with ALL government sactioned unions in a particular state be called "civil unions." As you point out, marriage is a religious rite between a man and woman--and it should stay that way, IMHO.

what is calling a civil union between gay people gonna hurt your feelings??


even if there is no difference the 2 unions. ROFL ROFL



i guess we found our "far right" gay that's gonna bitch about it no matter what.

DenverChief
03-17-2005, 05:04 PM
I don't understand what it matters to you what "they" call it, or why you think you've got some sort of Constitutional claim against "them" calling it anything. But whatever. I don't find that particular part of the argument worthwhile because of how irrelevant it is. Once the government defines all unions as civil unions, they can call them "honeymoon hotdog bunners" for all I care. It doesn't matter to me.
ROFL

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2005, 05:07 PM
what is calling a civil union between gay people gonna hurt your feelings??


even if there is no difference the 2 unions. ROFL ROFL



i guess we found our "far right" gay that's gonna bitch about it no matter what.

No, it would be like calling you a woman: are you a WOMAN, Laz?

If not, one could argue the only difference is your vagina is smaller...so you shouldn't be upset if we call you a woman, then....right? :shrug:

This isn't about the "far right"--only a left wing wacko would say that....I vote Republican and Democrat, about 60-40 %; I'm no fundy, nor am I a "born again" extremist. Ask before you pigeonhole.

On this issue, in your mind....because I disagree with YOU on the issue--that makes me far right.

Yeah, right. Whatever Lazi....can I call you "Lazi," woman? :hmmm:

Mr. Laz
03-17-2005, 05:16 PM
No, it would be like calling you a woman: are you a WOMAN, Laz?

If not, one could argue the only difference is your vagina is smaller...so you shouldn't be upset if we call you a woman, then....right? :shrug:

This isn't about the "far right"--only a left wing wacko would say that....I vote Republican and Democrat, about 60-40 %; I'm no fundy, nor am I a "born again" extremist. Ask before you pigeonhole.

On this issue, in your mind....because I disagree with YOU on the issue--that makes me far right.

Yeah, right. Whatever Lazi....can I call you "Lazi," woman? :hmmm:
ok ... how about we let everyone get married

but for all "gay" marriages we spell it with two "a"s


gay = maarriage
hetero = marriage


now you can have your special word and won't have to take your ball and go home :harumph:



feel better now?!? ROFL ROFL


semantics :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2005, 05:17 PM
ok ... how about we let everyone get married

but for all "gay" marriages we spell it with two "a"s


gay maarriage
hetero marriage


now you can have your special word and won't have to take your ball and go home :harumph:

:

Works for me, Lazarita... :thumb:

Now get me a beer, and some pie...woman.

Mr. Laz
03-17-2005, 05:26 PM
Works for me, Lazarita... :thumb:

Now get me a beer, and some pie...woman.

A Rose By Any Other Name....

Taco John
03-17-2005, 06:00 PM
No, it would be like calling you a woman: are you a WOMAN, Laz?

If not, one could argue the only difference is your vagina is smaller...so you shouldn't be upset if we call you a woman, then....right? :shrug:

This isn't about the "far right"--only a left wing wacko would say that....I vote Republican and Democrat, about 60-40 %; I'm no fundy, nor am I a "born again" extremist. Ask before you pigeonhole.

On this issue, in your mind....because I disagree with YOU on the issue--that makes me far right.

Yeah, right. Whatever Lazi....can I call you "Lazi," woman? :hmmm:



I take it this is the "reasonable" part of your famous "reasonable people can disagree" statements.

the Talking Can
03-17-2005, 06:05 PM
WOW.

A judge in San Francisco. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you. :rolleyes:

Wake me up when the US Supreme Court does the same. Then we'll begin seriously lobbying for the Constitutional amendment.

The judge is a Republican, Roman Catholic, appointed by Pete Wilson.


republican judge (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/15/MNG8VBPIKS1.DTL)

So where are all the nut bags on this board complaining about "judicial activism"?



"...The native of Brookline, Mass., earned his law degree at the University of Southern California and practiced civil law in San Francisco before then- Gov. Pete Wilson named him to the bench. Over the years, the 57-year-old Roman Catholic and registered Republican has gained a reputation for being compassionate, respectful and unbiased."

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2005, 06:34 PM
I take it this is the "reasonable" part of your famous "reasonable people can disagree" statements.

Indeed, you are right TJ; I should have left my analogy 'generic' rather than directing it personally at Laz. My apologies Laz.

I attempted to use TIC sarcasm directed at Laz's absurd characterization, to raise an equally absurb characterization.

I thought the analogy was appropriate. Sorry, if I offended you. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
03-17-2005, 06:35 PM
The judge is a Republican, Roman Catholic, appointed by Pete Wilson.
...
republican judge (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/15/MNG8VBPIKS1.DTL)

So where are all the nut bags on this board complaining about "judicial activism"?

"...The native of Brookline, Mass., earned his law degree at the University of Southern California and practiced civil law in San Francisco before then- Gov. Pete Wilson named him to the bench. Over the years, the 57-year-old Roman Catholic and registered Republican has gained a reputation for being compassionate, respectful and unbiased."

NATIVE of Brookline, MASS....all anyone needs to know. Heh.

Rausch
03-18-2005, 02:03 AM
The judge is a Republican, Roman Catholic, appointed by Pete Wilson.


republican judge (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/15/MNG8VBPIKS1.DTL)

So where are all the nut bags on this board complaining about "judicial activism"?



"...The native of Brookline, Mass., earned his law degree at the University of Southern California and practiced civil law in San Francisco before then- Gov. Pete Wilson named him to the bench. Over the years, the 57-year-old Roman Catholic and registered Republican has gained a reputation for being compassionate, respectful and unbiased."

While I love to take a good dig at thte Catholic church I just don' see it here. I'm sure his morality and religon play into it, no dbout.

But I don't see hime legislating from the bench.

I see and old, outdated, fuddy-duddy towing the line...