I've been told they have enough signatures to put this on the ballot. It will be the biggest fight in gay rights history to get voters to say NO in November. Huge, huge fight, costing millions of dollars. But I actually think we'll win this one.
Peter
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. In addition, because the limitation of
marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no
constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional
conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand. [Rex
notes: 308.5 is Prop 22]
Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the
appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate
our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local
officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the
marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a
manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the
prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is
remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.
that's not clear yet -- the press is still digesting a very long opinion. But from what I've heard, this only overturns the current ban, and additional legislative steps will have to be taken. But the big threat now is that "a coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution."
I've been told they have enough signatures to put this on the ballot. It will be the biggest fight in gay rights history to get voters to say NO in November. Huge, huge fight, costing millions of dollars. But I actually think we'll win this one.
Peter
When Gavin Newsome was elected Mayor of San Francisco, The City of San Francisco issued marriage licenses and couples were married in City Hall. So if the current ban is overturned, will those earlier marriages be once again be recognized as a legal union between man and man and woman and woman? Have the best day
Michael
However, I believe that with this latest decision, I think those same-sex couples that married in SF and are still together and alive would have the option to marry again, and this time be legally recognized by the state.
Until the next time the carpet gets yanked out from under them. Sorry to come off so pessimisstic but I'm, well...pessimisstic.
"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this (ruling)."
This is awesome! Anyone around 29 years old wanna get married?!?! I am soo moving to California :)
I am so happy right now.
Is the oppositions problem with gay marriage the use of the word marriage? I'm thinking surely that isnt the only issue they have. But I dont know so thats why I ask.
I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to any two adult people being married. In my opinion if they are living together representing themselves as a married couple then they should have all the rights of a married couple.
They say their problem is with the WORD marriage. Silly to me...call it whatever you like.....two people love each other and live together as a couple.
I think their problem really is with their fear of homosexuals.
I have no clue either. People will be together anyway regardless of if they are allowed to marry. So I dont see the big deal.
That's of course not necessarily true if people are of different citizenships. Sometimes marriage is the only option to get citizenship. But it's just not an option for gays in most countries.
And until that vile piece of legislation known as DOMA is repealed, same-sex couples legally married in MA and CA aren't spouses under federal law; and if one partner is a non-US citizen, no immigration rights can be conferred (immigration being under federal, not state, jurisdiction).
I'm not optimistic that such a repeal is going to take place anytime soon, even though Obama has said that he's in favor of repealing all of DOMA; and the Supreme Court has so far refused to review constitutional challenges to the egregious act, whether on due process, equal protection, or full faith and credit grounds. :-[
Jay
That's of course not necessarily true if people are of different citizenships. Sometimes marriage is the only option to get citizenship. But it's just not an option for gays in most countries.I never even thought of citizenship issues.
I never even thought of citizenship issues.
If they really want to protect marriage then why not make divorce illegal?
Gay people have just as much right to be stuck in loveless relationships as everyone else! >:(
Gay people have just as much right to be stuck in loveless relationships as everyone else! >:(
New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere
By JEREMY W. PETERS
ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.
In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”
The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.
“Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.
Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while others, including New Jersey and Vermont, allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere.
I'm not quite sure your logic weighs up Philly. You are correct in that only Spain, Netherlands and Belgium recognise same sex marriages. On top of that though most of Europe recognises same sex civil unions. Whereas only a couple of the old eastern bloc countries ahve banned them.
(I don't have any desire to get married either, but I'd like to have my wedding registry at Moss (http://www.mossonline.com/).).
From tomorrow's front page of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/nyregion/29marriage.html):
So, combining the populations of MA, CA and NY that's 62.3 million people, or 1/5th the total of the entire country. It's more than a quarter of the same sex couples in the US per 2000 census data.
Compared with the 70 million of Spain, Netherlands and Belgium which are the only European countries where this is also legal we're no more backwards on the issue than anywhere else.
Back up Queen. My logic is correct because I cherry picked my facts to suit my agenda!
There are also other states that recognize civil unions and/or domestic partnerships -- CT, DC, HI, ME, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA. Those are the places that will move forward. The places that have passed constitutional bans are probably hopeless for another generation, but many are states with small populations and less LGBT couples.
Anyway, geographically and culturally Europe extends to the Ural mountains, so indeed half of it is as backwards as half of the US.
(I don't have any desire to get married either, but I'd like to have my wedding registry at Moss (http://www.mossonline.com/).)
My argument was mostly of a cultural sort comparatively. As a political matter, you're entirely correct -- but you're not going to take things to the level you want until the large states, with large populations make the moves. It was the same thing with inter-racial marriage.
Of course, you younger sorts are very impatient. Keep in mind that it's only been 5 years since you could butt fuck legally in Texas.
Most of the rights are up to each individual country. Same-sex couples in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain really do have all the rights of straight couples.
The reason Attorneys Generals from other states joined in the stay is because, unlike Massachusetts, this law allows people from all over the county to come to California and get married. And when you go back to your home state, you will have a certificate that says you are legally married which would "...could cause legal complications and confusion..." As if.
now if every other state would pull their head out!!!!
yippeeee!!!