Top California Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

[PeaceBlondie]

Lots of our readers are from California, the most populous state in the USA. Here is the latest news about gay marriage:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

Yes, anything about gay marriage is related to being gay in Thailand.

[jumnien]

Yes, it's clearly Thai-related as many gay parents have children in Thailand. My father, for instance! I'm very happy for all my gay friends in California for this, sort of, victory. On the other hand, I hope my father doesn't get all emotional and forever legally bind his finances to his creepy boyfriend and leave my wife, myself and our children out of the picture! Just kidding!

[Rionoir]

I think it's terrible when states change their CONSTITUTIONS to ban gay marriage... it's an abomination to use it to take away freedoms. Unfortunately the militant christians don't even think about such things... their religion is the ONLY religion... and they want to make laws around their religion... hmm... who does this remind me of...

Honestly I don't care if they want to give us "marriage" or not, I'll take domestic partnerships as long as they give us the same rights (and headaches) that married couples have... and this includes being able to bring our partner from overseas back to the US with me... that is what I'm waiting for.

[Jingthing]

For there to be federal gay marriage in the US where gay people have the exact same legal rights as everyone else, whether you call it marriage or not, will most likely take 50 years, maybe 100. By this I mean, gay marriage legal in all states, recognized in all states, recognized by the feds for tax and immigration purposes. Most of us reading this will dead by then. Have a nice day. Even Mr. Obama, who isn't my favorite leader but we are now stuck with him, is against legal gay marriage. If the most left wing presidential hopeful since George McGovern isn't fully behind us, what real hope is there?

Edited May 22, 2008 by Jingthing

[britmaveric]

Dunno think you are better off without marriage bit - things end up messier than you are in the same boat as the fem/male relationships.

[PeaceBlondie]

Dunno think you are better off without marriage bit - things end up messier than you are in the same boat as the fem/male relationships.

I agree with the ever-sensible britmaveric. Why imitate a fatally flawed social institution?

[jumnien]

It seems odd all these gay couples clamoring in line for the right to divorce! You know that the attorneys are backing gay marriage big time..

[JonnieB]

Honestly I don't care if they want to give us "marriage" or not, I'll take domestic partnerships as long as they give us the same rights (and headaches) that married couples have... and this includes being able to bring our partner from overseas back to the US with me... that is what I'm waiting for.

I am very much against "gay marriage" as it completely negates what it means to be gay. I have no wish to emulate some silly hetro breeding lifestyle nor adopt their norms and customs, of which "marriage" is the number 1 millstone!

California already has full domestic partnership legislation, which provides all the rights and responsibilities for pathetic suburban gays who want to copy the pathetic straight couples they see living next door in some sorta of committed couple milieu.

As to your wish to bring gay friends or partners to the US, that, of course, is a Federal immigration matter, and will not be affected one way or another by whatever happens with the California marriage matter.

Edited May 27, 2008 by JonnieB

[JonnieB]

Even Mr. Obama, who isn't my favorite leader but we are now stuck with him, is against legal gay marriage. If the most left wing presidential hopeful since George McGovern isn't fully behind us, what real hope is there?

Grow-up man...both of the dem candidates were only for full "domestic partnerships" only. If they had their druthers, they would probably support "marriage" too as there is no difference between the two. However, by maintaining this distinction without a difference, they preserve their ability to win in places other than San Francisco, West Hollywood, The Village, Fire Island, and Key West!

Why is it always people have to make the perfect the enemy of the good?

[JonnieB]

Lots of our readers are from California, the most populous state in the USA. Here is the latest news about gay marriage:

I wouldn't be picking out your dress just yet PB! It is a good bet that the decision will be stayed by the court until after the vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in November. It's also a decent bet that the amendment will pass, as a similar ballot measure passed in 2001 (I believe) with 61% in support. It is possible that public opinion may have shifted enough in the ensuing half-decade of so but I wouldn't count on it.

If the constitutional amendment passes, it could only be changed by another vote of the California people (not by the state courts or the legislature).

Edited May 27, 2008 by JonnieB

[PeaceBlondie]

What, do you mean that pink dress with the low bodice and the matching umbrella, that went so well with chartreuse high heels, will have to wait for a later purchase? Do you mean I cannot sing "I Feel Pretty, Oh So Pretty" in front of the make-up table? Oh dear. Maybe my flower girl can be my great-grand-daughter.

[Scott]

PB: Go for it--even if your not getting married--it'll be a big hit on YouTube!

I have absolutely no desire to 'marry' my life partner (of many, many years, I might add). I do think people should have the freedom to chose, if that's what they want to do. As I get older, I do think about when I die, and what rights my partner has (I think none) and how I can ensure these things which are enshrined in law for folks who are married (or a domestic partnership).

I do have one serious legal question though. As I understand it, I think all states in the US are bound to recognize a marriage performed in another state. I know that even most countries recognize marriages that are legally registered as being valid. Even marriages which aren't registered, but where there was simply some religious ceremony are recognized by the US.

How is a gay marriage in one state viewed by another state--say if you move? What if a couple moves and one dies, does the surviving spouse have the rights of survivorship in a state without gay marriage?

Sorry for rambling!

[Ijustwannateach]

^Unfortunately, that waffler Clinton signed a bill which said that states which didn't have gay marriage were allowed to ignore gay marriages performed in other states. This law is actually unconstitutional (as the law requiring states to respect contracts made in other states [including marriages] is at the constitutional level and thus cannot be overturned by a simple law or bill and must be changed by a constitutional amendment [much harder]), however to remove it there must be a formal court challenge and Supreme Court decision (which will take years) and so it has the same temporary effect (and gave Clinton some Nazi kudos).

Once that little snafu is cleared up, you're right- persons who LEGALLY ESTABLISH RESIDENCY in those states will be able to marry there and other states (and presumably other nations that have treaties with the U.S.) will have to respect those contracts (that's sometimes more complicated than it seems- it's not all like Las Vegas, after all).

But after seeing what's happened in most marriages, I'd rather deal with no gay marriage than have to deal with...

GAY DIVORCE!!!

"S"

[submaniac]

I wouldn't be picking out your dress just yet PB! It is a good bet that the decision will be stayed by the court until after the vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in November.

I actually doubt that the decision will be stayed by the State Supreme Court. The Court has up to 60 days to stay enforcement of its own rulings, but its rarely exercised. The Court made its ruling, and it generally does not back down. If the Supreme Court hasn't done it by now, it ain't gonna do it. Furthermore, on issues of California law (and this is the California Constitution) the California Supreme Court is the ultimate decisionmaker, and even the U.S. Supreme Court cannot intervene in its decisions (unless it violates the U.S. Constitution or Federal law).

If you want to get married in California, do it now before they change the Constitution. Basically, if you're married before the law is changed then you are grandfathered in. Whether or not the constitutional amendment would pass, it is still iffy. Recent polls in the L.A. times/OC register pretty much show that there are more people who do not care or support gay marriage, over those who outright oppose it.

[ProThaiExpat]

IJWT: I wish you were right, then gay married Californians could go anywhere in the U.S. they wanted and demand their marriage be recognized, however, whether the courts consider a marriage contract as being of a unique nature or whatever, full faith and credit principles that govern interstate commerce do not apply to marriage laws.

Going back to interracial marriage, when the California Supreme Court in 1947 declared unconstitutional bans on interracial marriage, some 38 states had prohibitions against such marriages and it took a U.S. Supreme Court ruling 17 years later to enforce marriage rights for inter-racial marriages throughout the U.S.

New York is presently battling in the courts the recognition of Massachusett's same sex marriage and how they will ultimately come down will depend on their Highest Court (New York State calls its court of first impression the Supreme Court) so I think in New York their highest court is called the Appellate Court or something like that.

One of the major impetuses in the mad dash to amend state constitutions (some 38 or so now) was to prohibit same sex marriage, what just has come to pass, some states would legalize it and a states only protection from judicial fairness and to ensure the tyranny of the majority, is to amend their constitution.

With the current U.S. Supreme Court's makeup, it is unlikely we will see anti-same sex marriage laws declared unconstitutional in our lifetimes. Fortunately, the conservatives in the U.S. are state's rights advocates, so they defeated a U.S. Constitutional amendment barring states from allowing same sex marriage, and the U.S. Supreme Court will probably likewise rule that it is a states right to grant marriage or forbid it for same sex partners on a state by state basis and those who move to a anti-same sex marriage state will suffer lack of recognition by that state. Certainly the first major test will be such a case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Feds will likely hold the line as long as they can, but with a more liberal Congress and with the abolition of the "No Ask, No Tell" policy for the military, that may change as well. Were talking decades here, unfortunately.

I have often posted the statistic that over 80% of American voters opposed inter-racial marriage when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it legal and has been posted by others, it is barely 50% opposing same sex marriage in California now, hardly enough to pass a constitutional amendment, when Arnie has pledged to oppose it and the legislature has passed a same sex marriage law in the past two successive years.

[Scott]

Wow, some pretty knowledgeable people here. I am impressed, and much better informed. Unfortunately, I guess, in the eyes of God, I am still in sin!

[PeaceBlondie]

Not if God is a Black lesbian.

[submaniac]

FYI,

The California Supreme Court today just rejected a petition for rehearing, and a petition to delay enforcement of the ban until after the November elections. Marriages will begin on June 17, 2008. Here's the L.A. times story:L.A. Times Story

[ProThaiExpat]

Thanks for the update, submaiac.

The religious right is getting desperate as they attempt to block the progress of a basic civil rights court decision.

Just so those who learned in grammar school, an often misapplied pricipal of the U.S. Constitution, the "will of the majority" arguement being advocated by the California consitituonal ammendment proponents, is way off when it comes to civil rights.

As I have posted regarding the history of interracial marriage, the "will of the majority" often becomes the "tyranny of the majority" and when that majority denies basic human rights, it is time for the courts to act, or for that matter, the legislature, as it did when it passed same sex marriage laws two years in succession, only to be vetoed by a Republican govenor. An example of "one man rule"?. Another definition of "one man rule" is dictatorship.

Yes, the religious right often speaks of "activist judges" when decisions don't go therr way, in Thailand today, the role of the judiciary will be so important in proceeding in the current political storm. BKK Post has started to express the view that all Thais should let the judiciary sort out the current poliitical conflict in accordance with Thai law. I think it is Thailand's only hope for stability, if the judiary acts decisively.

I was most impressed by the Prime Minister of Canada when he addressed its legislature on the ultimately enacted right for same sex couples to marry, when he said, it is up to the legislature to acty when it appears that basic human rights are being violated by the "tyranny of the majority".

[LaoPo]

The new same-sex marriage law in California is even reported in China:

Same-sex couples hold hands at a symbolic group commitment ceremony for same-sex couples in West Hollywood, California June 4, 2008. A California Supreme Court ruling on Wednesday clears the way for gay marriage ceremonies that could bring a business windfall to San Francisco and other cities starting this month.

Sonora Chase (L) and Dasha Snyder dance at a symbolic group commitment ceremony for same-sex couples in West Hollywood, California June 4, 2008.

Two groom figurines are on display on wedding cakes at Cake and Art bakery in West Hollywood, California June 4, 2008

Two bride figurines are on display on a wedding cake at Cake and Art bakery in West Hollywood, California June 4, 2008

From: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2008-06...t_6740341_4.htm

LaoPo

[ProThaiExpat]

Periodically, we see posts from gays who say they have no interest in same sex marriage and that the gay community has misplaced their priorities by pushing for same sex marriage at the cost of other political objectives.

Below is quoted a very inciteful analysis of why the right to same sex marriage is so fundamental and why it could only be good for Thailand from a human rights point of view.

"The Legacy of Lawrence v. Texas

by By Kevin Cathcart, Lambda Legal Executive Director

Apart from allowing same-sex couples to marry in California — which was itself momentous — the recent California Supreme Court ruling did something else important and notable: It reaffirmed the promise of Lambda Legal’s historic U.S. Supreme Court victory striking down all remaining state sodomy laws five years ago. This news is especially gratifying as we prepare to celebrate the fifth anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas this month.

We always knew that Lawrence was about so much more than sodomy laws — and so much more than sex. True, we began the case challenging Texas’s “homosexual conduct” law on behalf of our clients John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were literally dragged from John’s home one night for having private, consensual sex. But from the beginning, we argued for the fundamental right that all adults have to express private sexual intimacy without interference from the government - for the right that all people in this country have to be treated fairly under the law.

Lawrence overturned an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bowers v. Hardwick, which had upheld Georgia’s criminal sodomy law. At the time, sodomy laws were being used to justify wholesale discrimination against gay men and lesbians — keeping people from job opportunities, adoption and simply living their daily lives with dignity and respect. Bowers left all of this perfectly legal, because it asked the wrong legal question: Did gay people have a constitutional right to sodomy?

If this sounds familiar, it should. Opponents in our marriage cases often try to convince courts that we are seeking a right to “same-sex marriage,” not a right to marry that all people share. In deciding our marriage case (brought with lead counsel NCLR, the ACLU and others), the California Supreme Court did not buy the “same-sex marriage” argument. It found that some rights, like the right to sexual intimacy we secured in Lawrence, are so fundamental that they cannot be taken away from anyone. This, the court said, was true for marriage as well.

Additionally, the California Supreme Court cited Lawrence several times in its decision and used it to reject the notion that history and tradition can justify discrimination, quoting Lawrence’s now-familiar line: “…times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.”

“For this reason,” the California Supreme Court added, “the interest in retaining a tradition that excludes an historically disfavored minority group from a status that is extended to all others — even when the tradition is long-standing and widely shared — does not necessarily represent a compelling state interest….”

The weight of Lawrence in this case — and in other marriage cases — cannot be overstated. At five years old, Lawrence v. Texas is coming of age and informing a range of cases that involve liberty and fairness.

In fact, less than a week after the California marriage win, a federal appeals court panel issued a decision in the ACLU’s case challenging the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that relied heavily on Lawrence, just as we’d urged in our friend-of-the-court brief. In the words of the court: “We hold that when the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, in a manner that implicates the rights identified in Lawrence, the government must advance an important governmental interest….”

In other words: based on Lawrence, the military must prove that it has an important reason for enforcing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” against a well-qualified servicemember. The case now returns to the lower court, where the military will attempt to make its case — something that will be harder now that the standards of liberty set in Lawrence have been held to apply. Meanwhile, we continue to put Lawrence to work in the fight for equality — it’s been cited in hundreds of cases addressing employment discrimination, custody rights, criminal law, and, of course, relationship recognition.

The lesson here, as we celebrate the Lawrence anniversary, is that all aspects of individual liberty and equality relate to each other. And they build upon each other.

As we secure the right to marry in a state like California it gives us added strength to pursue our work on all fronts. We are as much a part of this great nation as anyone else — and that recognition is perhaps the greatest legacy of Lawrence. "

Edited June 9, 2008 by ProThaiExpat

[jerry921]

Being married in the US confers a whole lot of rights (and responsibilities). I'm not 100% sure of all of this, some may be "urban legends", but anyway:

- A spouse can make medical decisions for their incapacitated husband, like deciding to pull the plug. (In the case of Terry Schaivo (sp?) it was the husband who had the right to decide, and her parents had to go to court to get a say in the decision.

- Without being married, you could be barred from seeing your unofficial domestic partner when they're in the hospital, and you certainly wouldn't be asked to make any medical decisions.

- If a US citizen is married to a non-US citizen the non-US citizen has a fast-track to a work permit and permanent residency ("green card").

- Two married people filing taxes jointly will sometimes pay less tax than two single people filing separately. It used to be the other way around, but they "repealed" the "marriage penalty", i.e., they now impose a penalty on single people or those who file separately instead. This includes old widows/widowers.

- Married people pay lower rates of car insurance and life insurance.

- There are still lots of companies in the US that do not provide "domestic partner benefits", although the fortune 500 companies are mostly on board. If you do not have this benefit, then your partner will have to obtain health insurance either through their own job or on the open market (which is much more expensive and insecure). If you both have domestic partner benefits you can choose the better of the two plans to cover you both, but if neither of you have it then one of you will necessarily have to make do with a lower-benefit health plan.

- There is an exemption to the death tax which shelters assets being transferred upon one partner's death. (Although under current law this expires in 2010).

Now if all of these rights, benefits and loopholes were granted to same sex couples in a civil union I would be perfectly ok with it if they wanted to reserve the term "marriage" for those mixed-sex couples who have a religious ceremony. The church should be allowed to define and control their own religious rites, that's the basis of religious freedom. But even if the supreme court declared that same sex couples have a right to a civil union today it would still take years and years of court cases to get the laws changed for each particular benefit, right and privilege afforded to married couples. So to me a big part of the problem is that so many civil laws are based on a status that is conferred by the church. Let the state govern what is the state's to govern and let the church make their rules but don't discriminate against gays in the civil arena.

On the other had the political push for same sex marriage (as opposed to civil unions) has clearly been an over-reach (at this time) that has caused a backlash with a number of negative consequences. If CA passes a state constitutional amendment this fall the victory being celebrated here will be in fact a defeat for gay rights.

So in my view the decision of whether to set the goal at gay marriage or just gay civil unions is a tactical and strategic political decision, but one that in the long run doesn't make a difference to me. As long as we get to one or the other goal eventually. In the short run I don't know which way will result in greatest and quickest equality so I leave it up to the politically active to decide. They do seem to be slowly winning, so hurray for our side.

[ProThaiExpat]

jerry921: It has been an established principle of Constitutional Law since Brown v. The Board of Education regquiring integrated schools, that separate is not equal. Allowing the majority to segregate the relationships of gays into a civil partnership limbo and then trying to give them all the benefits of mariage is just plain discrimination.

I agree that the word marriage, from a political perspective, should be left to the churches, but the liciensing of unions by any state must be equal, thus all those choosing to form a union, straight or gay, apply to the state for a "union" license and leave the marriage to the churches. There certainly are enough churches to marry gays, if the need is felt.

Keep in mind that the Federal Government currently doesn't recognize any form of relationship between same sex individuals, so any of the benefits you mention that are Federal, just don't exist for same sex partners and that includes Income Tax, Immigration, social security, etc.

It will take time, as you say. Allowing gays to serve in the military will probably be the first hurdle accomplished. Hoepfully, immigration will come next, after all, in the Republican controlled legislature, 138 members signed on the annual bill that aims to treat foreign nationals in relationships with same sex partners equally. Immigration rights, no fast track yet for any same sex couples.

While Barney Frank, the leading gay congressman, has gone on record that 'now is not the time" for gay marriage, California didn't follow suit, to its credit. Only after the majority of Americans see through everyday life that gay marriage doesn't threaten all that they hold dear, will acceptance occur. Religionists will always be opposed, but then they oppose many things that are commonplace in American society.

[PeaceBlondie]

Lots of great comments here on an important issue. One false point I see being raised by the conservatives who defend straight marriage, is that we gays are trying to destroy straight marriage. No, the straights already destroyed that. We are trying to allow those who want gay marriage, to have what the straights already ruined.

[callao]

Lots of great comments here on an important issue. One false point I see being raised by the conservatives who defend straight marriage, is that we gays are trying to destroy straight marriage. No, the straights already destroyed that. We are trying to allow those who want gay marriage, to have what the straights already ruined.

I just read today that a gay activist group has filed suit to stop the ban gay marrage bill off the november ballet, so we'll se what happens