Gay Marriage Legal In California, Court Declares
A deeply divided California Supreme Court said Thursday that California’s ban on gay marriage is not legal, a move that sent off wild cheers and celebration in San Francisco but one that will face new fights from opponents of same-sex marriage.
Proponents gathered Thursday morning awaiting the opinion, which came on a 4-3 vote, and the crowds erupted moments after it was released at 10 a.m.
On the courthouse steps, impromptu press conferences erupted amid gleeful sobbing and cheers.
In its 121-page majority opinion, the court stated emphatically that California law may not deprive gays and lesbians of the same rights of other citizens.
“…(R)etaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise – now emphatically rejected by this state – that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples,” the opinion authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George said.
“Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
By midmorning Thursday, same-sex couples hoping for a favorable ruling began to line up outside the San Francisco city clerk’s office.
Standing at the head of the line, San Francisco couple Bruce Ivie and David Bowers said they were waiting for history.
“I just feel it,” said Ivie, 51 wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a pink triangle and “Proud Forever” on it. “California has always been a trendsetter. It’s now about time.”
Ivie and Bowers, together for 28 years, were among the thousands of gay couples who rushed to City Hall to be married in 2004.
They said they were horrified and heartbroken when their marriage was later voided, and spent the next four years following the gay marriage case as it made its way through the courts.
“We’ll have each other forever, but we deserve the same rights as everybody else,” Bowers said. “How can it hurt anyone else?”
A line slowly began to snake around the vinyl ropes outside the clerk’s office.
Outside the court building Thursday, gay and lesbian proponents gathered, with many saying they were extremely anxious as they awaited the opinion.
Among the group were two Davis women, Shelly Bailes and Ellen Pontac, who said they have been together for 34 years and were the 45th couple married at City Hall in 2004.
Pontac carried a sign that said “Life feels different when you are married.”
“We are full of hope,” Bailes said. “This is extremely important. We have been fighting this fight for a really long time.”
The women, who will speak tonight at a Sacramento gathering in midtown, drove to San Francisco to be at the courthouse for the decision.
“Shelly said this morning that she wouldn’t be this nervous when we get married,” Pontac said. “We’ve been together for 34 years. It has been a long-enough engagement.”
After the opinion was issued and the crowd erupted, the two Davis women reacted differently.
Bailes cried, while a grinning Pontac got on her cell phone to deliver the news to someone else.
“This is incredible,” Bailes said. “This is really it. We are legal.”
Added Pontac, “We are planning our wedding day.”
Kendell, one of the plaintiffs, said she expected the ruling to have a far-reaching impact nationally.
“Even though the ruling only applies to California, we all know the effect the state will have on the rest of the country,” she said. “This is a harbinger state. People look to the state for leadership. The sunshine here today will extend to everywhere in this country where it has been hard to be a gay person.”
Technorati Tags: GayMarriage, California, GayRights, SupremeCourt, Law, Marriage, EqualRights
Notalib is in need of understanding the role of the justices. They are there to decide the constitutionality of laws and actions. If that is not their role than why have them as part of a governmental system? They ruled as they did because the existing laws made it so. The case law that the ruling was based on was a mile high. I too have read the 170 plus page ruling and found it powerful. And correct.
I just finished reading the entire ruling (it is a long one..but well written) and it does not require clergy of any type to perform gay marriages. The Chief Justice wrote a very tight and remarkable ruling. I strongly urge all to read it….both those who agree with me and those who may not.
Ferrell:
I wouldn’t worry about churches being forced to perform same-sex marriages. Religious freedom is a bedrock principle of our country — right up there in the First Amendment with freedom of speech — and therefore, courts don’t get involved in doctrinal disputes. If houses of worship were the only places where people could get married, it might be a more complicated issue, but clearly that’s not the case. Same-sex marriage litigation is about getting our due from our civil governments, not from religious institutions.
Notalib:
The problem with your argument is that the “will of the people” is in conflict with an individual right, and, this is a key point, it’s a right the exercise of which does no harm to anyone. If the exercise of an individual right does not impinge on someone else’s exercise of an individual right, I don’t see where the will of the people comes in.
This is a great decision by the court – just and fair. It’s sad that such an issue has to go all the way to the high courts, because it should be a simple issue of granting equal rights to everyone. That’s been in the Constitution since the beginning, but for some reason we seem to need constant struggle and reminding to get it applied.
Ferrell – I really doubt that these decisions could slippery slope their way into allowing for gay couples to sue churches into performing their marriages (nor do I think they should). Religious organizations, tax-exempt as they are, have the right, as far as I’m aware, to deny service to anyone they so choose. And that’s their business.
What I think those of us on the pro-gay marriage side have been fighting for is equal rights under Federal LAW, which has nothing to do with the church.
Gregory: Gay marriages do not undermine my marriage. I could quote verses from the bible about Gays while right and logical to me, would be shot down by you, because now I have brought the bible into the argument. All I am saying that this ruling now says Gays can get married. Now, let’s try to “kick it up a notch” and get the court to rule on the venue where they we can get married. I am positive that the courts will rule in favor of the Gay community and every Catholic, Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Baptist and every other bible based church will have to fall into line and perform the ceremonies or close up shop because of the lawsuits. I believe that day will come sooner then anyone thinks and that is what I TRULY fear…
This issue is not about gay marriage but the will of the people being ignored and 4 judges telling you that voting is a waste of time in America because what the people want is not what they will get.
Today 4.6 million people in California today have been told your voice, your vote does not matter.
Sad what America has come to, where 4 judges have more power than 4,600,000 people.
Gregory: You missed my point. Fine, gays now have the right to get married in CA and as I said more states will probably be ruling in favor of gay marriage. Fine, get married at a Justice of the Peace, City Hall, a place where the institution has to by law perform the ceremony. I am saying that if a Gay couple wants to get married and one of them says “let’s get married in the church where I went to Sunday school or got confirmed.” If the church is a bible based, christian church such as Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, Baptist, Assemblies of God or Catholic, then the church should always have the right to say to “no” it is not a marriage in the eyes of God and we will not perform the ceremony. What I am saying how long will it take until gay couples can and will sue churches to force their hands into performing a marriage ceremony? My guess is not long and that is what TRULY scares me.
Ferrell,
Should your marriage be more respected than any other loving couple? And if so why? And could you please let me know how a gay married couple undermines your marriage?
I have never been able to wrap my mind around the other sides argument as no one has been able to explain it with logic.
Would you please give it a try.
Sincerely,
Gregory
This is fantastic news!! Now maybe the country will begin to understand that marriage is a basic civil right. Being from Massachusetts this is a great anniversary gift for our 4th year of the legalization of gay marriage on May 17th. This should really shake up the election as well.For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue:) http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com
So now that California has legalized Gay marriages and I am sure many states will start buckling under to this precedent, including Illinois. You won this one. How long will it take until gay couples will start suing churches into performing gay marriages? My guess is not long… When you start blurring the lines of black and white and making them gray, then everything is right and nothing is ever considered wrong. I am seriously scared about this court decision….