Calif. Supreme Court upholds gay marriage

[Rush Limbaugh]

Calif. Supreme Court upholds gay marriage

SACRAMENTO, May 15 (UPI) -- The California Supreme Court Thursday upheld 4-3 same-sex marriage, saying the city and county of San Francisco may issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

In a 172-page opinion, the seven-member court ruled there is no California law limiting marriage to a man and woman.

The court likened bans on same-sex marriages to interracial marriage bans, which have been determined unconstitutional.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation …," Chief Justice Ronald M. George said in writing for the majority.

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians ..."

In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the decision goes too far.

"Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage -- an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law -- is no longer valid," Baxter wrote.

The ruling stemmed from six cases that were consolidated before the court.

A sad day in California.

Let me make this clear however. If Calif. wants to allow gay marriage thats their buissness and not that of the federal government one way or the other.

[RZZZA]

why is it a sad say, i cant figure out why you or anybody would care if gay people wanted to marry.

[Guy de Yoyo]

In deed, why is this a sad day? Doesn't devaluate the concept of marriage at all imo.

[Erik]

Have they determined that laws banning gay marriages are unconstitutional?
Or have they determined that laws allowing gay marriage are constitutional?

[Chlodwig I.]

I don't get it to, if they want to merry let them do it.

[Heinz Guderian]

I dont understand. Why is it a sad day in Cali? Is it something to do with federal vs state or Rush vs gays

[RZZZA]

arnnold swarchzenheimer, the governator, has said he'll uphold the decision.

go arnie, go arnie, go arnie

[Shaun]

A sad day in California.

Explain.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

You lefty commies make me sick. Trying to bring freedom and happiness into others' lives by changing the status quo. What do you think its there for, positive reform? Pff.

[Gary88]

don't you guys know that gay marriage is attacking the familly!!

i don't know what that means but i'll say it very loudly!!!!



/sarcasm

[RZZZA]

yes, i feel physically and mentally threatened by gay people every day. The ones in the gym make me feel insecure about my body, and the ones in the clubs make me question my sexuality.

[Kiljan Arslan]

look as long as their not forcing churches that don't want to to do the ceremonies how is this a problem?

[RZZZA]

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation …," Chief Justice Ronald M. George said in writing for the majority.

amen

[El Brujo]

The main problem here is the part of the U.S. constitution that forbids states from refusing to recognize contracts and licenses from other states. California now recognizes homosexual marriage, a lot of other states adamantly refuse to recognize these marriages. Somebody is violating the constitution, and it might take a SCOTUS ruling to decide who's at fault. Expect lots of harsh language, fanfare, and marching around in the streets if it comes to that.

[Каие]

so?

[Rush Limbaugh]

ave they determined that laws banning gay marriages are unconstitutional?
Or have they determined that laws allowing gay marriage are constitutional?

They say it violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Nothing to do with the US one.

Again its my believe that marriage is a state issue. I dont think SCOTUS should have anything to say about this.


Also the comparison the the civil rights movement is bogus and insulting to blacks.

I dont think that same sex joinings should hold the same status as hetrosexualk marriage for the simple reason they dont produce children. In fact they cant naturally produce children from their bonding. Love as far as the state goes is meaningless. Now any two people can join in "marriage" for any reason.

[Erik]

They say it violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution. Nothing to do with the US one.

Oh, I see, thanks for the info.

Again its my believe that marriage is a state issue. I dont think SCOTUS should have anything to say about this.

I think his point was about people getting married in California and then travel/move to other states and not have their marriage recognized, not about the marriage itself.

The same kind of issues arose when same sex couples in my country were first getting married: some other countries refused to recognize our marriages which caused very strange situations.

I think you are right that it's a state (or countries) own business to allow gay marriage or not, but all other countries/states should still recognize those marriage contracts even if they don't hand them out themselves.

[Rush Limbaugh]

I think his point was about people getting married in California and then travel/move to other states and not have their marriage recognized, not about the marriage itself.

He has no point under the constitution. One state doesnt have to accpet anothers regulations. They merely have to stay within the US constitution.

the origin of 'marriage' is actually to do with ownership, nothing about children but legal rights between the partners.

And their offspring. Dont be stupid. Otherwise just make it a legal contract. The expected out come of most hetero sexual marriages is children,

[El Brujo]

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It looks to me like California could have a case, depending upon how a judge would interprit Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings. Does marriage count? That's the rub, and there's the row.

[Ultraman]

Otherwise just make it a legal contract. The expected out come of most hetero sexual marriages is children,

I'm not lawyer, but I've always thought that marriage is a legal contract. What is or isn't "expected" is more about cultural norms, and is not a legally binding requirement. In your opinion, if I'm infertile, or just don't want kids, then I shouldn't be able to have a legally recognizable marriage? Or elderly people either?