Calif. joins Mass. (for now) on same-sex marriage

Ripped from the wires ... In an editorial today, the San Jose Mercury News cheers the California Supreme Court's voiding Thursday of that state's same-sex marriage ban, on the ground it is unconstitutional. The newspaper also worries that a ballot initiative now in the works could overturn the ruling:

The California Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that marrying someone of your own choosing is a fundamental civil right that applies to all. Californians have cause to celebrate this landmark decision.

The legalizing of same-sex marriage is a historic advancement of equality that should not be reversed.

Opponents, who are on the verge of putting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot in November, should read the majority's well-reasoned opinion. The jurists based their decision not on personal, moral or religious beliefs, but on the obligation to protect individual rights.

In their 4-3 ruling, they:

-Found that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the equal-protection guarantees of the state's constitution.

-Recognized that gay and lesbian couples have the same right to marry that was established in a 1948 state Supreme Court decision striking down the state's ban on interracial marriage.

-Concluded that even though gay couples have broad rights under domestic-partnership laws, those are not the same as full marriage rights.

The high court, where Republicans outnumber Democrats 6 to 1, recognized that all Californians deserve an equal right to form lasting family relationships. "The California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians,'' Chief Justice Ronald George wrote.

The state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is the result of a 2000 voter initiative and a 1977 law. Both defined marriage as between a man and a woman. But this ban contradicts the most basic values of fairness and equality. Why should loving and committed same-sex couples, many of whom have been together for years, not have the same right as heterosexuals to walk down the aisle or to create and raise families?

To be sure, many people in California -- and the nation -- sincerely believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. This ruling will further intensify outcries over family values and the sanctity of marriage. Yet, personal beliefs aren't at issue here. Constitutional protections are.

Thursday's ruling won't be the final word on gay marriage. High courts in only California and Massachusetts have ruled in favor of same-sex marriages. More than 40 states have laws or constitutional provisions that bar recognition of same-sex marriage.

Californians should expect a vitriolic political and ideological battle in November over a likely voter initiative to block gay marriages. Unlike Proposition 22, the 2000 voter initiative that outlawed same-sex marriages through statute, this voter ban would be on constitutional grounds -- which could trump Thursday's ruling. Whether public opinion has shifted since Proposition 22 passed in 2000 with 61 percent of the vote remains to be seen.

For now, California has created a milestone for civil liberties. Voters should preserve it.

-- Mercury News

Comments?

Comments

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

I will agree with same sex "partnerships," but "marriages" are between a man and woman!

DrJED

[Denney Clements]

Some would see that as a distinction without a difference, if by "partnership" you mean a state-sanctioned relationship with legal protections for both partners.

More on the subject from the mayor of San Francisco, who touched off this debate in California four years ago by issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples:

By Gavin Newsom
California has always been a place where traditional class, race and gender barriers have been pushed aside by a spirit of equality and opportunity that says to all -- no matter who you are, no matter where you come from -- "It can be done.''

In that spirit, yet one more barrier gave way when the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation, have the right to marry.

The court's ruling affirms the very best of what California represents: our long-standing commitment to equality and justice.

It was 60 years ago that the state Supreme Court ruled in Perez vs. Sharp that the ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional -- 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court would come to the same conclusion in Loving vs. Virginia. So in February 2004, when I ordered San Francisco's county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it was with full recognition that as goes California, so goes the nation.

This is an historic moment for California and our country. We have taken an irrevocable step toward resolving one of the most important civil rights issues of our generation. But the road ahead will be difficult. The same groups that sponsored Proposition 22, the ballot measure the court just overturned, are close to placing a measure on the November ballot that would write discrimination against gays and lesbians into our state Constitution. This effort would not only nullify Thursday's ruling, it could overturn existing laws granting the most basic rights to same-sex couples.

It is one thing to have an intellectual discussion about marriage equality. It is quite another to sit down with a loving couple of nearly 50 years and try to explain to them why they are being discriminated against by a government they help fund with their tax dollars.

When you sit down and learn a little about Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin -- two women now in their 80s who have been together as a committed couple since the early 1950s -- you realize there are no intellectual arguments against marriage equality that survive one second in the real world. And there are no more rationales for delaying the fight for equality.

Phyllis and Del were the first to take wedding vows in San Francisco City Hall in 2004 -- vows that were invalidated by the state Supreme Court months later. Which is why it is so important that the court reject any request to delay implementation of the ruling until after the November election. This loving couple has been waiting for decades for the same rights that straight couples enjoy. They have waited long enough.
In its correct and courageous move, the California Supreme Court affirmed an important principle. But it did so much more than that. It affirmed that the bond between these two people is as strong and loving and secure as any other marriage in this city, state or nation.

If they agree, I would like to officiate another marriage for Phyllis and Del as soon as possible. And when I do, it will be much more than a legal principle we celebrate. It will be the live-affirming love between two fellow Californians.

We are no longer debating the principle of marriage equality in California. We are ready to put that principle into practice. I hope to see many more couples throughout the state married in the weeks and months ahead.

Come November we will, in all likelihood, have to defend these new marriages at the ballot box. I hope that before anyone makes up their mind on the issue of gay marriage, they will take a few minutes to meet some of the many people who are finally enjoying the rights the rest of us enjoy.

Like Phyllis and Del, who will finally be able to say "I do."

Anyone who meets these two wonderful women, or the thousands of couples soon to follow in their footsteps, surely can only reach the conclusion that we can't allow a wrongheaded ballot measure to take these marriages away.

Newsom is the mayor of San Francisco.

dc

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

Denney:

I don't care what "some would see that as a distinction without a difference."

Let the see it that way, but a "marriage" remains between a man and woman!

DrJED

[prefab sprout]

Hey Jed..... Try telling that to Mary Cheney and her wife/hubby/spouse Heather Poe. Not to mention their child Sam......

[Denney Clements]

Jim: Can you explain your thinking on the man-woman thing?

dc

[Richard L. Wolfe]

"California has always been a place where traditional class, race and gender barriers have been pushed aside by a spirit of equality and opportunity that says to all-- no matter who you are, no matter where you come from-- " it can be done."

As a smoker I challenge that statement. California is full of s**t!

[Richard L. Wolfe]

Denny, I think I can explain it in case Dr. Dunn doesn't. The centuries old reason for marriage was procreation. Mainly, to provide legitimacy to the heirs. Traditional marriage has been considered holy matrimony, while sanctioned by the state it was usually a religious ceremony. " We join this couple together in holy matrimony in the eyes of God." Traditional religion considers homosexuality a sin thus it cannot be sanctioned in the eyes of God.

There in lies the rub. The State doesn't consider the Church the final authority on marriage. They consider a marriage to be legal if the state decrees it so. It is the word marriage that is the core of the issue. So, the state should join the homosexuals in a " State Union " with all the legal privileges of marriage and then everyone will have their way.

[Nick]

I wouldn't mind it if the states said "everyone who is married, legally we are now refering to that as a civil union. We don't care what your religion refers to it as, that's between you and your church."

[Dr. James E. Dunn]

I look at marriage as a religious union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of procreation.

If two homosexuals want a state santioned civil union, then so be it.

A marriage, however, is between a man and woman.

DrJED

[Doug Madaga]

Bottom line... I'm from Massachusetts. Because gay people were allowed to marry, the world did not come to an end as we know it! Do I approve? No. But that doesn't mean the Law impacted me.

[Denney Clements]

Doug makes a good point: Live and let live.

dc

[DanielC]

*snicker*

Anyone that has been married has to know that it is all "Same Sex Marriage", hence the whole primus of "till death do you part" after that and only after that does it become "different sex".

... Come on I don't care who you are, that's funny ...

The Federal Government does not need to be in this matter!

It's a social matter to be decided at the local level only. While I think the whole debate over this is a farce on the basis of the fact that the "partners" don't have the rights to pick medical issues, money issues, and etc. those issues are very easily taken care of with a legal partnership and some lawyer paperwork.

DanielC in SC