05/15/2008
California Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Opinion (PDF)
The California Supreme Court has overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in a 4-3 decision. The opinion is lengthy, and I'm just getting through it, but here's an excerpt:
"Furthermore, 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, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. 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, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."
The SF Chronicle reports: "The ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall. As the decision came down, out-of-breath staff members ran into the mayor's office where Gavin Newsom read the decision. Outside the city clerk's office, three opposite-sex couples were waiting at 10 a.m. for marriage certificates. City officials had prepared for a possible rush on certificates by same-sex couples, but hadn't yet changed the forms that ask couples to fill out the name of the 'bride' and 'groom.' Kenton Owayang, the office supervisor for the city clerk's office, said he's waiting for word from the state registrar's office about marriage forms and working on getting extra staff members in today in case the city is able to give out the certificates to same-sex couples."
Photos from the Courthouse steps...
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reacted to the ruling: "...as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
Ruling may reverberate in presidential race in favor of McCain...
Equality California to hold celebration rallies across the state...
And the portion of the opinion where they talk about why anything aside from the term "marriage" is unsatisfactory, AFTER THE JUMP...
"Under the strict scrutiny standard, unlike the rational basis standard, in order to demonstrate the constitutional validity of a challenged statutory classification the state must establish (1) that the state interest intended to be served by the differential treatment not only is a constitutionally legitimate interest, but is a compelling state interest, and (2) that the differential treatment not only is reasonably related to but is necessary to serve that compelling state interest. Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.
"A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
Posted 1:13 PM EST by Andy Towle in California, Gay Marriage, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Do we know anything about nonresidents being able to marry in CA?
Posted by: Feral | May 15, 2008 1:52:36 PM
And Arnold weighs in thusly:
"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this (ruling)."
Posted by: Feral | May 15, 2008 1:56:19 PM
I feel like crying.
I may just have to move to California now.
Posted by: Sean H | May 15, 2008 1:56:31 PM
Everything good happens on May 15th. :)
Posted by: Chris M from Hunk du Jour | May 15, 2008 1:57:12 PM
vundebar! makes me wish i lived in cali... and had someone to get married to. so how long till this happens in nyc?
Posted by: ryan | May 15, 2008 1:57:14 PM
Ferel,
There are no restrictions on foreigners and non-residents marrying in California. So, come on down.
Welcome to the Golden State!
Posted by: John | May 15, 2008 1:58:06 PM
As a former long-term CA resident, this ruling brings tears to my eyes. A truly remarkable development. As we know from historic trends, as goes California, so goes the rest of the nation...at least eventually. However, I have a funny feeling. in my stomach as I worry about the inevitible backlash...especially in a presidential election year. Get ready for Barak and Hillary to re-voice their opposition to same-sex marriage. They have no choice if they want to win.
Posted by: Chris in MN | May 15, 2008 1:58:14 PM
We're on a roll re: birthday gifts, Andy! Better than flowers and a swanky dinner, tho I'll take those, too.
More importantly, reading excerpts from the decision above, the clarity, wisdom, and rightness of it just shines thru. Applause for those judges on our side. History will be, too, whatever obstacles we face along the way.
Posted by: Ernie | May 15, 2008 2:01:00 PM
I'm a 25 year-old gay married Canadian man who has watched in horror as America's rogue president and his "supporters" have tried, with all their might, to erode the rights of the LGBT community.
I have watched in despair as the fundemental Right has revved its propaganda machine into high gear in an attempt to turn the American people against their LGBT brothers and sisters.
It is truely heartening and uplifting to hear about this development in California.
The Just stand for justice! Imagine!
Congratulations from Canada.
Posted by: SGL | May 15, 2008 2:01:33 PM
Let's hope Iowa's Supreme Court follows California's Supreme Courts example
Posted by: Brian C | May 15, 2008 2:01:57 PM
Adding a yeeehaa! This really is an important day. Where Massachusetts and California lead, the other States will slowly start to follow.
I bet there are some very happy and very tearful people in CA right now!
Posted by: Gregus | May 15, 2008 2:02:27 PM
This is truly a beautiful moment. I can't understand how anyone, anywhere, could refute the decision.
As much as I love Arizona, California is proving much more alluring at the moment...
Posted by: Sam | May 15, 2008 2:04:17 PM
I can barely see to type this, I'm crying so much. Congratulations to California, God bless you!! I never, ever thought I would see something like this in my lifetime-two states in the U.S. that legally recognize our civil rights.
Hopefully NJ will follow suit since it is the opinion of many in it's legislature that Civil Unions are NOT equal to marriage.
This is a GREAT day!!!!!!!
Posted by: JerzeeMike | May 15, 2008 2:09:46 PM
Happy Birthdy Andy!!! An already historic day is even more historic! May 15!
Posted by: Anon | May 15, 2008 2:10:08 PM
Hallelujah! And the ruling is so well-written, so perfectly articulated. Let the celebrations begin!!!!!!
Posted by: Bryan | May 15, 2008 2:14:17 PM
In Ireland I'll soon be able to enter a full legal union with my American partner (we've been together for ten years). He'll enjoy complete protection under Irish law including the right of citizenship.
It's sad that he'll still have to wait decades (probably) before being able to return the compliment here in the US.
I'm utterly thrilled by California's ruling, but spare a thought for the thousands of Americans who's foreign born same sex partner will be unaffected by this ruling. It could happen to you, too.
www.immigrationequality.org
Posted by: FASTLAD | May 15, 2008 2:14:23 PM
Oh, Andy, I'm sorry, baby.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: JerzeeMike | May 15, 2008 2:15:51 PM
Congratulations California! It is truly a glorious day!
New York, are you paying attention?
Posted by: ichabod | May 15, 2008 2:17:40 PM
Take a moment to read/skim the full opinion. Even in his dissenting opinion Justice Corrigan states his own personal support for equal gay rights and then states that as long as domestic partnerships are fully equal, the court shouldn't rule about the name "marriage". While we may disagree with him, in doing so he hints at affirming that equal rights are required. So overall, IMHO it is a very strong opinion. 5-2 for equal rights, 4-3 for marriage.
Posted by: Scott Gatz | May 15, 2008 2:18:09 PM
This will go all the way to the Supreme Court
Do you want a mccain supreme court (at least 2 replacments in the next 4 yrs) deciding on it or a Supreme court with apointments by a dem president?
Obama/ Clinton 08
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 15, 2008 2:21:18 PM
Definitely a great birthday gift for Andy. Hopefully this will put pressure on civil union states to upgrade to Marriage 1.0. However, we have the FMA hanging over our heads and the possibility this could help right-wingers in the fall. Obama is probably not too happy about this ruling. It also would have been better 5-2 or 6-1 or something other than 4-3, or even better, passed as a law in the legislature. That, and the issue is now really dividing the country into two.
Posted by: anon | May 15, 2008 2:22:23 PM
I just asked my lover of 38 years to marry me and he said "Sure."
Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 15, 2008 2:26:36 PM
JB: This cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court as it's strictly a matter of state law. In order to go into the federal courts, the ruling would have to violate the civil rights of the citizen's of all states, probably through equal protection motions (how I can't envision) or the violation of another state's sovereignty (why I can't say) or through some sort of claim the ruling violates separation of powers (untested legal premise). So don't get too worked up about that.
I forgot to mention that now they need to redo the wedding scene from Brother's and Sisters!
Posted by: anon | May 15, 2008 2:27:58 PM
Nostalgia buffs might appreciate the link below to a live AMATEUR recording of Bette Midler singing “Chapel of Love” [backed up by Joni Mitchell, with Barry Manilow on the piano] at New York’s legendary Continental Baths the night of September 6, 1971 B.A., that's Before AIDS and before one could probably count on two hands the number of us who even imagined that gays could be legally married someday. [Thanks to the unknown creator of the incredible Bette On the Boards site!]
http://www.betteontheboards.com/boards/tours/tour-01/tour-01-13.ram
And for those auslanders who don’t want to be left with only the few seconds’ attention it might get on national evening TV news and would like to watch local TV coverage online, here are links to Bay Area stations. Look for additional coverage of local celebration at the SF LGBT Community Center after 5 pm tonight Pacific time.
www.kpix.com
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/
www.kron.com/
www.ktvu.com
http://www.nbc11.com
Posted by: Michael Bedwell | May 15, 2008 2:28:03 PM
Jimmy,
Since the ruling relied exclusively on state law, the federal Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over this case. As far as the courts are concerned, this decision is final. Referendums are the only real threat at this point.
Posted by: John | May 15, 2008 2:31:48 PM