Gay Marriage for All!

Gay Marriage Opponents Salivating in California

2008-05-15T19:46:00.000-07:00

Once again, right wing Republicans are putting political gain and divisive election trickery ahead of the good of the country. And today's California Supreme Court ruling in support of gay marriage has them practically foaming at the mouth in anticipation of a divisive November election.

While Gov. Schwarzenneger plans to mortgage the state lottery to close an estimated $20 Billion budget gap, the most pressing issue on these folks' minds is the fight to keep same sex couples from joining in sacred matrimony.

"The Supreme Court essentially gave the strategy," said Mathew Staver, the attorney who represented Campaign for California Families before the court in unsuccessfully arguing to uphold the state ban on same-sex marriage. "When you have four people in the state undermining the will of the people, that's the strategy in itself," said Staver, dean of the law school at Liberty University, a fundamentalist Baptist college in Lynchburg, Va.

These folks have never understood the balance of power in this country, how the juducual system was created as a check on the powers of the legislature, executive branch, and the people. They've spent eight years trying to move all the power into the Executive Branch, and yet they themselves run to the courts when they don't get their own way. It's duplicitous, hypocritical, and would be laughable if the real-world results of their actions weren't so painful.

In Oregon, they ran to the courts to request a stay on a domestic partnership registry that wasn't to their liking. And yet, whenever a ruling goes against them, they claim judges are "legislating from the bench" and "overturning the will of the people."

"People are tired of their voices not being heard," Karen England, a conservative activist, said in an SF Chronicle article today.

Excuse me?

You're tired of not being heard? You who have run the bloody country for eight years, who basically controlled all three branches of the federal government for six? You're tired of not being heard?

What about gay and lesbian families?

What about children whose parents couldn't get married in this state because of your own selfish prejudices?

What about couples who are separated in the hospital by families who don't approve of their relationships?

Here's an idea - take all that righteous anger and use it to tackle things that really matter - things that can unite us, not divide us. Like global warming. Or the state budget. Or soaring health care costs. Or ending the war in Iraq. Or helping people save their homes. The list is endless.

As if all this weren't enough, these right wingers can't stand the idea that one of us might marry our partner before they can shut off the civil rights spigot.

The group pushing the constitutional amendment plan to file a motion to block the implementation of the ruling within the next 15 days, and it doesn't take effect until 6/14.

"We think it's in the best interest of the court and the people of California to not have a bunch of marriages in limbo," Lavy said. "It can cause a lot of chaos. People who get marriage licenses between now and November, what does that mean? Does it have any legal significance? We'd have to have a whole other round of litigation."

It's like the arguments we heard from these Luddites when Newsom was marrying same sex couples in 2004 - they wanted to stop the weddings so the poor gay people getting married wouldn't have to deal with disappointment when they were annuled.

Somehow we doubt the sincerity of their concern for us.

Staver said "I think you still have 50-plus percent of Californians who would vote for (opposite-sex) marriage."

Let's hope this idiot is wrong, and that Californians reject these out-of-state carpetbaggers and find the better part of their own natures.

And, just for one day, Mister Staver, please go away, and let us enjoy the moment.

--Scott

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned - Not "Justified" according to California Supreme Court

2008-05-15T10:26:00.001-07:00

Here's another moving section of the majority ruling today from the California Supreme Court:

"...we conclude that retention of the traditional definition of marriage does not constitute a state interest sufficiently compelling, under the strict scrutiny equal protection standard, to justify withholding that status from same-sex couples. Accordingly, insofar as the provisions of sections 300 and 308.5 draw a distinction between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples and exclude the latter from access to the designation of marriage, we conclude these statutes are unconstitutional."

We're entitled to the same rights, dignity, and respect as everyone else, and the Court just stood up and said so.

--Scott

Justice Kennard Gets it on Gay Marriage Ruling by California Supreme Court

2008-05-15T10:23:00.000-07:00

In a concurring opinion, Justice Kennard writes:

" Absent a compelling justification, our state government may not deny a right as fundamental as marriage to any segment of society. Whether an unconstitutional denial of a fundamental right has occurred is not a matter to be decided by the executive or legislative branch, or by popular vote, but is instead an issue of constitutional law for resolution by the judicial branch of state government. Indeed, this court’s decision in Lockyer made it clear that the courts alone must decide whether excluding individuals from marriage because of sexual orientation can be reconciled with our state Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. (Lockyer, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 1068-1069.) The court today discharges its constitutional obligation by resolving that issue. "

Thank you, Justice Kennard, for stepping in and doing the right thing for same sex couples!

--Scott

Justice Baxter Dissents on the California Supreme Court's Landmark Gay Marriage Ruling

2008-05-15T10:21:00.000-07:00

Yes, let's let the people decide if a minority deserves any rights:

"If such a profound change in this ancient social institution is to occur, the
People and their representatives, who represent the public conscience, should have
the right, and the responsibility, to control the pace of that change through the
democratic process. Family Code sections 300 and 308.5 serve this salutary
purpose. The majority’s decision erroneously usurps it."

--Scott

Justice Corrrigan Dissents on California Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling

2008-05-15T10:18:00.000-07:00

No big surprise, but again, what mean-spirited thinking:

"We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic
partnership statutes to continue to take root. If there is to be a new understanding
of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of
our state and find its expression at the ballot box."

--Scott

California Supreme Court Says Yes to Gay Marriage in California

2008-05-15T10:11:00.001-07:00

It's official - the California Supreme Court has opened the doors to gay marriage in the Golden State:

"In the present case, it is readily apparent that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples clearly is more consistent with the probable legislative intent than withholding that designation from both opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples in favor of some other, uniform designation. In view of the lengthy history of the use of the term “marriage” to describe the family relationship here at issue, and the importance that both the supporters of the 1977 amendment to the marriage statutes and the electors who voted in favor of Proposition 22 unquestionably attached to the designation of marriage, there can be no doubt that extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples,rather
than denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most
consistent with our state’s general legislative policy and preference. "

"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. "

Furthermore, the court gave us the right to pursue this immediately:

"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."

Oh my gawd... this feels so good! It's like a huge weight has lifted, and the ache in my stomach that started about 5 minutes before the ruling was posted is gone - thank you so, so much to the California Supreme Court for overturning the mean-spirited Prop 22 and giving us the dignity we've fought for so long.

--Scott

How Will the California Supreme Court Rule on Gay Marriage Tomorrow?

2008-05-14T21:27:00.000-07:00

So it all comes down to this.

A few hours ago, we saw the news that the California Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage would come down tomorrow at ten o'clock.

And now we're all raw nerves and conflicted emotions.

We watched the hearing a couple months ago, and were pleasantly surprised that most of the justices (with one or two notable exceptions) were open minded about the issue.

We shuddered when we learned that 1.2 million of our fellow Californians, folks we pass on the street every day, who we talk to in the supermarket, and who live on our streets and in our neighborhoods signed the petition to block Mark and I from ever getting married in the Golden State.

And we listened eagerly to the rumor of a positive court ruling a couple weeks ago.

But today, as I write this, we're just over 12 hours from the resolution to a battle that started over four years ago on the steps of San Francisco's City Hall, where eight thousand souls pledged their love to one another when the City threw open its doors and welcomed us into the institution of marriage.

How revolutionary the moment was, the idea that the folks in our government finally saw us, finally recognized us and the commitment we had for one another.

How earthshaking and fundamentally game changing the brave stance of the city and Mayor Newsom was in the face of the constant attacks against us by the right wing.

And how unexpectedly emotional it was when we, Mark and I, stood at the top of the grand staircase at city hall and spoke our vows to one another in front of two strangers, wonderful volunteers who came willingly to witness and officiate for us.

Months later, our license would be invalidated, by the same court that now holds our fates in their hands. But the court couldn't invalidate what had happened, or what it meant to us and thousands of other same sex couples.

So as this saga draws to an end, I can't help but feel a little trepidation. What if, after all of this, after the weddings, and letters, and donations, and personal testimony, and the support of all our friends and family and allies, what if tomorrow dawns and it isn't enough?

I am cautiously optimistic of a positive outcome, that the court will stand up for us tomorrow and tell the world what's right, what we deserve as both human beings and as citizens of this great democratic society.

I watched the last two episodes of the great show Brothers and Sisters, and was moved to tears by the honesty of the portrayal of Kevin and Scotty and how Kevin proposed. And how the show once again made the point that there's no substitute for marriage. Civil unions are good, as far as they go, but they're just pale imitations of the real thing.

So I'm holding my breath, though I may get blue in the face, and I'm hoarding my hopes and holding my fear at bay. Maybe, at this time tomorrow, the world will have become a little bit better place. Maybe soon we'll be able to say that we're more than domestically partnered. That we're not just civilly committed.

That we're married.

Tomorrow morning can't come too soon.

--Scott

info@purpleunions.com