California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban

Foxrac

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
44,482
Reaction score
448
SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- California's highest court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages Tuesday but allowed about 18,000 unions performed before the ban to remain valid.

Supporters of November ballot initiative Proposition 8 hailed the ruling, but about 1,000 advocates of same-sex marriages who gathered outside the court building in San Francisco met the 6-1 decision with chants of "Shame on you."

Following the ruling, supporters of same-sex marriage took to the streets to protest.

CNN affiliate KGO reported that after the opinion was made public lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender officers were brought in specifically to help manage the crowd.

During those protests 159 adults and three juveniles were arrested and cited for jaywalking, San Francisco Police Department Sgt. Lyn Tomioka told CNN.

Similar rallies were held Tuesday evening in Los Angeles, where 3,500 to 5,000 protesters took part, according to police estimates. There were no arrests, said Julianne Sohn of the Los Angeles Police Department.

There were also reports of demonstrations in San Diego and some other California cities, as well as in major cities nationwide.

Lisa Angelot and Karen Brandenberger were married when it was legal, but they said their own marriage is not enough, and told KGO they were prepared to be arrested to make the point.

"It will be my first time to be arrested," Angelot told KGO.

Many supporters said it was most upsetting to have the right to marry yanked away from them after last year's court ruling.

"It is impossible to square the elation that we felt just a year ago with the grief that we feel today," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "And it is impossible to reconcile the court's ruling from a year ago with its upholding of Proposition 8 today."

The same court, dominated by Republican appointees, ruled in May 2008 that the state constitution guaranteed gay and lesbian couples the "basic civil right" to marry. Voters responded in November by approving the marriage ban by a margin of 52 to 48 percent.

Opponents of the ban argued that it improperly altered California's constitution to restrict a fundamental right guaranteed in the state charter. Its supporters argued that Californians long have had the right to change their state constitution through ballot initiatives.

Tuesday's ruling found that the proposition restricted the designation of marriage "while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples," as Chief Justice Ronald George wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno -- the court's only Democratic appointee -- wrote that the decision "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."

The decision sparked protests in San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego.

"It's nice that my marriage is still intact, but that's not the point," said Kathleen White, who was among those awaiting the ruling in San Francisco. "The point is that everybody should have the same civil rights across the board."

But Miles McPherson, pastor of the Rock Church in San Diego, said the court "did the right thing."

Voters in 28 other states have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, and none has been rejected, he said.

"God didn't create the family that way," McPherson said. "You can't have a family with a mother and a mother, because [children] need a mother and a father to nurture their personality and their character."

Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the ruling "should encourage pro-family activists not only in California but across the country." But he said that by preserving marriages performed before the ban, the justices could have opened a door to a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was unclear whether advocates had an avenue to appeal Tuesday's ruling, however. And Dennis Herrera, San Francisco's city attorney, said the fight for same-sex marriage rights would most likely go on "in the electoral arena."

"Today we're faced with a disappointing decision," Herrera said. "But I think we also know it could have been worse."

A new effort, dubbed Yes on Equality, has begun working to place an initiative on the 2010 ballot that would repeal Proposition 8.

State justices left unaddressed whether same-sex marriages performed in other states before the ban was adopted would be recognized in California, and advocates would have to argue that the measure violated their rights under the U.S. Constitution for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.

California took its first steps toward recognizing same-sex marriages in 2004, when San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

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 written statement.

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

California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban - CNN.com
 
I'm not surprised about CA supreme court and I thought it will strike down after judge make rule but nothing is happen.

It's very sad news, however there's some options to strike Prop 8 out, such as federal supreme court, court of appeals or add ballot to repeal the Prop 8.
 
It's people who has spoke for the vote to pass while other people don't agree. That's unfortunately when it happen.

Patience until gay take over the world to end the mankind.
 
I'm not too surprised myself. The racial group breakdown in California, is one of the largest of all states for Minorities.

If I remember my old sociology data right, California was made up of:
~48-50% White/Anglo Saxon
~30% Hispanic
~11-12% Asian
~6% African
~1-2% Rest of races combined

You can use those percentages to plug into the total pop. of California, which is 36,756,666 on Jul 2008

I'm not too sure about Hispanics, but in Asia, their culture, mostly the Orientals (3 major branches: Chinese/Japanese/Korean) view same-sex marriage as disgraceful.


Asian-Americans on the other hand, are another story. There's one famous guy I remember who is gay, B.D. Wong. Search him to find out.
 
I can see that there is different vote compare to 6 to 10 years ago, I think two time, they tried to vote to pass the same-sex from highest percent said NO until it decrease few to 52+ percent. Yike, I had to say. haha
 
There aren't even words to express how disgusted I am with this decision. If I lived in CA, I would already be starting a ballot saying that marriage is only between a previously unmarried man and woman, or only between a white man and woman, or hearing, or seeing, or anything. If their reasoning is that the only thing that has been taken away is the word "marriage" then the right to marry of any group can be stripped away, since they also have access to the exact same civil unions that are supposed to be "enough" for same-sex unions.

Really just the most ridiculous, illogical decision I can imagine.
 
This is a huge shame...shame on those people for being so close-minded!
 
what the fuck,

"God didn't create the family that way," McPherson said. "You can't have a family with a mother and a mother, because [children] need a mother and a father to nurture their personality and their character.


I strongly disagreed the quoted that they mentioned is W R O N G because in evidence of raising child by same sex is no caused to their personalities nor character in worst scenario case than opposite sex so therefore it has to be considered as "discriminating" base on same sex
 
pek.............you know I honestly think you don't get it. If the law was saying deaf people or blind people or whatoever other minority couldn't get married, you'd be ranting and raving about how unfair it is. But b/c it concerns a group of people that your religion has arbitarily decided are not "right in God's eyes" you support it. You know....that sort of thinking is dying. MANY mainline Christian churches now support the rights of gays and lesbians. In a few years your thinking will be as archaic as the Deep Southreners who were against desegregation!
Our time is coming. The times they are a changing! :)
 
pek.............you know I honestly think you don't get it. If the law was saying deaf people or blind people or whatoever other minority couldn't get married, you'd be ranting and raving about how unfair it is. But b/c it concerns a group of people that your religion has arbitarily decided are not "right in God's eyes" you support it. You know....that sort of thinking is dying. MANY mainline Christian churches now support the rights of gays and lesbians. In a few years your thinking will be as archaic as the Deep Southreners who were against desegregation!
Our time is coming. The times they are a changing! :)

Pek1 is just more confused person than get into right point, he has no heart for southeast states as well.
 
Even thou I am a Christian, and I do have a few friends who are gay, lesbian, and bi...I do not judge on their personal life backgrounds as long as they do not judge on mine as for me being an heterosexual person. I prefer girls and that's it. They completely understand that as I completely understand theirs so...anyway, It will be a very long battle for the homosexuality community to take their rights to marriage. It did take a very long battle for the blacks to gain their rights to vote, to sit anywhere they want, and so on.

So the only answer to this is to just take patience. The homosexuality community will gain their rights as to human rights someday. It will be a very long time before we see them getting their rights.

It is disappointing to see some very religious people being so close minded about the gay marriage is considered against God's image for men and women to make celebrate their love, and having children and such...they are just a bunch of paranoid close minded sadists.

They failed to deliver the understanding that God LOVES everyone, even the ones who are cruel and sick. He would forgive us for our sins only as we ask him to forgive our sins, and that's it. God put us ALL here for many reasons so obviously there is a reason that homosexuality exist. But do we know? not really but we do know that they are just different. We are all just different, is all.

So no...I dont think it would seriously be the end of the world if they allow gay marriage to be accepted. It's not right to judge people's business into what they like to do with their lives and such. Their marriage is their own personal business as it is personal with God.
 
I think they should get married, because why should they be happy, honestly dont care either way, im looking forward to the ultimate outcome though
 
Back
Top