California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban

[The Minx]

Link

• NEW: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praises court for leaving 18,000 marriages intact
• Dissenting opinion says decision "fundamentally alters" state constitution
• Court's 6-1 ruling met with chants of "shame on you" from crowd of about 1,000
• Voters in November approved ban on same-sex marriage

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a ban on same-sex marriage that state voters passed in November, but it allowed about 18,000 marriages performed before the ban to remain valid.

The 6-1 decision was met with chants of "shame on you" from a crowd of about 1,000 people who gathered outside the court building in San Francisco.

"It's nice that my marriage is still intact, but that's not the point," said Kathleen White, who married her partner in 2008. "The point is that everybody should have the same civil rights across the board."

Opponents of the ban argued that the controversial Proposition 8 improperly altered the California Constitution to restrict a fundamental right guaranteed in the state's charter.

But the court found the measure restricted the designation of marriage "while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples."

"We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid," California Chief Justice Ronald George wrote.

The court, which is dominated by Republican appointees, ruled in May 2008 that the state constitution guaranteed gay and lesbian couples the "basic civil right" to marry. The 4-3 decision came four years after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

But in November, state voters approved the Proposition 8 ballot initiative 52 percent to 48 percent. The measure provided that only heterosexual unions would be recognized as marriages by the state.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who opposed the initiative, praised the court for leaving the previous marriages intact and urged opponents of the decision to respond "peacefully and lawfully."

"While I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage, as governor of California, I will uphold the decision of the California Supreme Court," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

Supporters of the proposition argued that Californians long have had the right to change their state constitution through ballot initiatives. The effort to overturn the restriction "strikes directly at the heart of California's system of government," a brief by the conservative Family Research Council argued.

California Attorney General Jerry Brown sided with advocates of same-sex marriage, stating in court papers that Proposition 8 "put the fundamental rights of a minority group to a popular vote." And in his dissenting opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno wrote that the measure "violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning."

"The majority's holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution," Moreno wrote.

Proposition 8's approval sparked protests against and criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which strongly supported the measure.

Opponents of the ban said the Utah-based church donated a majority of the money that funded the Proposition 8 campaign. But the Mormons said they were being unfairly singled out for criticism when other religious leaders -- including Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles -- also supported the ban.

Tuesday's decision left unaddressed whether same-sex marriages performed in other states before the ban was adopted would be recognized in California.

Four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages. A Vermont law making such marriages legal will take effect in September.

On May 6, same-sex marriage became legal in Maine as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state Legislature approved it.

In April, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it is illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry. The first gay marriages in the state took place April 27.

The District of Columbia voted May 5 to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, though it does not itself give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In April, New York Gov. David Paterson introduced legislation to make same-sex marriage legal in his state.

New Hampshire's move to legalize same-sex marriage hit a road bump Wednesday after that state's House of Representatives did not agree to legislation changes made by the governor.

Both the House and Senate already had approved allowing gay couples to marry. But Gov. John Lynch, a three-term Democrat, said he would sign a same-sex marriage bill only if it provides "the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions."

The House on Wednesday fell two votes short of approving Lynch's language. The chamber then voted to send the legislation to a committee to be considered further.

I admit that I am a little surprised, not only at the fact that the ban was upheld, but that the margin was so high.

[General Havoc]

Unfortunately, legally speaking, the anti Prop-8 people had very thin ice to stand on. The crux of the matter is that the measure did pass in the vote, and to overturn it would be to pretty blatantly go against the will of the people, such as it was. The court really had no choice but to find this way.

[SirNitram]

They had to argue procedurally, and it was a thin case. They can't appeal to equal rights or anti-discrimination, because Prop 8 enshrined discrimination in the State's Constitution.

[General Havoc]

They had to argue procedurally, and it was a thin case. They can't appeal to equal rights or anti-discrimination, because Prop 8 enshrined discrimination in the State's Constitution.

That's pretty much the way of it. The tide is quite clearly turning in favor of gay marriage though. One day, hopefully soon, we'll wrench Prop 8 out of the law in California. But we'll have to do it with the ballot box, not the courts.

[The Minx]

I just had to add the BBC article on the matter, because this quote is just too incredible to be believed otherwise:

Link

California's Supreme Court has upheld a ban on same-sex marriage - the latest twist in a long-running saga.

The judges rejected a challenge from gay-rights activists to overturn the result of a 2008 referendum which restricted marriage to heterosexuals.

Prior to the vote, same-sex marriages were legal for six months, during which 18,000 couples were married.

The judges said their ruling was not retroactive - meaning those couples will remain legally married.

Changes 'too easy'

Tuesday's legal showdown was sparked by a 4 November vote in which Californians backed Proposition 8 - the proposal to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples - by 52.3% to 47.7%.

The campaign over November's vote cost more than $80m (£51m) - the most expensive ballot measure on a social issue in US history.

Activists challenged the result of the referendum, saying the measure violated the civil rights of gay couples.

They argued that the ballot measure revised the state constitution's equal-protection clause so dramatically that it should have had legislature approval before being put to voters.

But the seven-strong panel of judges rejected the appeal by a six-to-one majority.

In their ruling, the judges said the campaigners were arguing that it was "just too easy" to amend the state constitution through the ballot process.

"It is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

'Victory for democracy'

Gay-rights activists stood outside the San Francisco court shouting "shame on you" after the decision was made public.

Some promised to continue their campaign.

"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said 62-year-old Jeannie Rizzo, who was one of the lead plaintiffs.

"I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day," she told the Associated Press.

But the court's decision was hailed as a "victory for democracy" by Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative group that supported Proposition 8.

"[The ruling is] a victory for the civil rights of clergy, county clerks and Californians across the political spectrum who did not want to be forced by the government to approve of same-sex marriage," he said.

National 'tug of war'

Before giving their ruling, some judges indicated they would be extremely reluctant to overrule the will of the people as expressed in the vote.

The court should not "willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the state constitution as they have in the past", said Judge Joyce Kennard, according to AFP.

Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five states - Massachusetts, the first state to legalise it in 2004, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa - but is subject to the continuing national tug of war over the issue.

Analysts say opponents of gay marriage might now set their sights on seeing the law overturned in Iowa.

Like several other states, California allows same-sex couples to enter "domestic partnerships", which afford many of the same rights as marriage.

But activists say such partnerships are not equivalent to marriage.

Right, so Prop 8 was all about protecting civil rights.

The civil rights of those clerics and clerks who don't want to provide services to same sex marriages.

Golly.

[General Havoc]

There is only one word I could possibly use in responding to that quote:

*Headdesk*

[frigidmagi]

"[The ruling is] a victory for the civil rights of clergy, county clerks and Californians across the political spectrum who did not want to be forced by the government to approve of same-sex marriage," he said.

I was under the impression that a clergy member who did not wish to preform same sex marriages had the right to refuse before prop 8? Why would you want to force a clergy member to preform your wedding anyways? It would kinda fuck it up a bit I would think. You wouldn't be able to hear your vows over the sound of teeth grinding.

As for the clerks and such... Shut up and file the damn paperwork, you work for the state if you can't hack state laws you should walk.