California | Gay Marriage | News

California Supreme Court to Rule on Same-Sex Marriage

Justices

Tomorrow at 10am the California state Supreme Court will issue its ruling on same-sex marriage. (Click here for Court notice)

Hopefully Ryan Davis' prediction of last month will be on the mark.

Equality California has listed a post of rallies around the state that will happen regardless of the Court's decision...

Schwarzenegger's remarks at last month's Log Cabin Republican convention,
AFTER THE JUMP...

Recently
California High Court Preparing Pro-Gay Ruling on Marriage? [tr]
Schwarzenegger Calls Gay Marriage Ban 'a Total Waste of Time' [tr]
California Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Same-Sex Marriage Case [tr]
CA Anti-Gay Groups Relaunch Effort to Ban Same-Sex Marriage [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Keeping my fingers crossed... remember marriage has made it through the CA legislature *twice*. If we could just get the NYS Senate to do something... (will require getting rid of the great Joe Bruno)

    Posted by: Anonymous | May 14, 2008 2:58:55 PM


  2. I am keeping my fingers cross that the court rules that civil unions must be granted but not same-sex marriage. IN an election year, we don't need this issue to arise against as the wedge issue that torpedoes Democrats' chances in November. Gay marriage is why we lost in 2004, and hopefully won't be why we lose again in 2008. I wonder why courts like to coincide their rulings on gay marriage with pivotal elections. It seems almost as if Karl Rove is scheduling their decisions.

    Further, this is an issue that ultimately will be decided by CA voters. Even if the court rules for gay marriage, it would be immediately challenged via ballot initiative. A decision for gay marriage would only ensure that voters get the final say on this matter.

    Posted by: Javier | May 14, 2008 3:12:41 PM


  3. Schwarzenegger just had to get in the foreign-born presidential candidate crap during his response to a completely unrelated and frankly vastly more important issue. Really gives me hope that people like him care about us after struggling to utter a single sentence of vague support before changing the subject to his own interests in such a beguiling fashion.

    Posted by: Wes | May 14, 2008 3:16:39 PM


  4. Javier - it is a myth that gay marriage "is why we lost in 2004." A review of the exit polls does not support this conclusion.

    According to a UC Berkeley study comparing the 2000 vote to the 2004 vote, the gay marriage ban initiatives failed to generate new support for President Bush.

    Check it out here: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/11/30_BushIraq.shtml

    Posted by: PistolPetey | May 14, 2008 3:34:16 PM


  5. I also think that the rest of the country considers California to be on another planet, and won't be surprised or particularly care what we wacky Californians do. At least I hope so.

    It's an issue of state rights, and other states can do whatever they like.

    Posted by: Paul R | May 14, 2008 3:49:53 PM


  6. Schedule of post decision [Win or Lose] rallies below. Of course, Berserkleyites would agree with the nonsense the heads of national gay groups spewed to defend their total fuck up of the 2004 election. Karl Rove has SPECIFICALLY taken credit for the role exploiting gay marriage equality phobia played in reelecting his Fuhrer.

    Rally 411 from Equality California site:

    Los Angeles
    7 p.m. | At the intersection of San Vicente and Santa Monica Boulevards

    More Information:
    Contact Jason Howe with Lambda Legal, at 213.382.7600 x247 or by email.

    San Francisco
    5 p.m. | San Francisco LGBT Community Center

    More Information:
    Contact Roberto Ordenana at 415.865.5665 or by email.

    Sacramento
    7 p.m. | Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center

    More Information:
    Contact Ali Bay, EQCA Communications Manager, at 916.284.9187 or by email.

    Palm Springs
    5 p.m. | Palm Springs City Hall front steps, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way

    More Information:
    Ted Jackson with Equality California, 805.617.9239 or by email.

    San Luis Obispo
    5 p.m. | San Luis Obispo Courthouse Steps

    More Information:
    Contact Lorelei Monet at 805.541.4252 or by email

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | May 14, 2008 4:11:09 PM


  7. The actual impact of gay rights issues in 2004 is not negligible, but it is overstated. The Dems had a weak candidate who simply didn't do well against an incumbent, then-popular president. Bush was still (however wrongly) trusted to run the country and the war he started.

    And 2008 is not 2004. People seem to be forgetting this, and a little year called 2006 when we started to Throw The Bums Out(TM). A helpful recap of current events:

    * The states most likely to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage...have done so already. It can no longer credibly be used as a wedge issue in these states.
    * Karl Rove is not at the helm of McCain's campaign.
    * Rove's own vision of Republican dominance has crumbled.
    * Anyone still taking strategy tips from him is thinking twice about it.
    * We're still at war, years after "Mission Accomplished!"
    * The dollar is low
    * Prices are rising
    * Our housing market just tanked

    And Michael Bedwell, as wacky as UC Berkeley students/residents/faculty may or may not be, ad hominem attacks on actual academic studies only makes you look like a fool at best, and a Republican-style mouthpiece at worst.

    And if you'd actually checked the link and followed it to the study itself, it was primarily about the GOP (at the county and local levels) and Bush losing votes in proportion to the number of casualties in the Iraq war coming from a state. How Beserk! How Controvertial! Those wacky left coasters! We all know what they're smoking!

    Please leave anti-intellectual, academia-bashing crap like that to Limbaugh and company.

    Posted by: AG | May 14, 2008 5:10:32 PM


  8. The relevant point is that the matter will ultimately be decided by voter referendum. The anti-gay marriage folks are already planning to do as much and will have added momentum if the court rules for same-sex marriage. SO, ultimately pro-gay marriage supporters will have to win over a majority of voters. There is no way around that fact.

    Posted by: Luke | May 14, 2008 5:35:32 PM


  9. Spare fucking me, AG! "Left coasters"? Girlfriend, I've lived at the corner of Sodom & Gomorrah for years!

    My response was to the way the study was summarized: "According to a UC Berkeley study comparing the 2000 vote to the 2004 vote, the gay marriage ban initiatives failed to generate new support for President Bush."

    Now you're telling us it showed something else? So my opinion remains the same in relation to the spin of "don't blame us professional queens."

    PS: You're displaying your own anti-intellectual "foolness" by coining, "ad hominem attacks on actual academic studies." How sophomoric! One could make ad hominem attacks on those who conducted the studies but not the studies themselves. And how "academic" this one was...that is, scientific, objective, valid, fill-in-the-blank...is in the eye of the beholder.

    Further: constitutional bans on gay marriage equality are not the only gay-related wedge issue. As much as I hope your Pollyanna view about the benefits deriving to us by these different times, your argument would have been better served had you also mentioned the permeation of state-level versions of DOMA. Understanding [unlike most gays] that federal DOMA legally did nothing for the states, all but maybe half a dozen passed their own versions. And several, as you say, have added state constitutional amendments on top of that.

    The larger point is that millions of American voters remain brainwashed about the ongoing "threat" of "the homosexual agenda" generally. The attention to the marriage equality issue has distracted too many of us from their secondary and growing assault on any attempt to organize or protect gay kids in public schools—in the name of "religious freedom."

    McCain has already started talking about stopping "activist judges" [code for pro gay equality judges]—and will exploit it more and more between now and November. That their fears are absurd is beside the point.

    Yes, their fears about the ecomomy might well trump their fears of us, but if you think Karl Rove is the only masterful, ruthless Republican you need to go back to class.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | May 14, 2008 6:41:50 PM


  10. MICHAEL, I appreciate your opinions on what the problems are but I'm more interested in hearing what you think the solutions are.

    Should we not fight for marriage equality or just not now? If not now, when? I can understand the strategy for an incremental approach. I've grudgingly supported that pragmatic approach all along. Is this what you're getting at.

    I realize that to some people this issue is nothing more than a notch in the gay rights belt but for many of us these are issues of life and death.

    I honestly respect your opinions and most often (outside of the Obama/Hillary debate) agree with them. I'm sincerely interested in hearing how you would suggest that we proceed in the struggle for civil/legal equality for our relationships and our families and where this struggle, in your mind, fits into the overall struggle for gay rights/equality.

    Posted by: Zeke | May 14, 2008 8:21:00 PM


  11. It's a shame we have to go to the polls this year on same-sex marriage (especially with the important presidential election coming up). Time is on our side in California. There's no point in holding a referendum right now.

    Due largely to the fact that the universe hasn't collasped since registered partnership were enacted in 2003, the opposition to gay nuptials has died down considerably since Prop. 22 passed in 2000.

    For the last eight years, opposition to same-sex marriage has gone down 1-2 percentage points every year. And it's almost even right now. In five years, we could go into a referendum with a considerable lead. In ten years, I dare say we'd wipe the floor with the religious right.

    Also, Schwarzenegger's term ends in 2010. The GOP doesn't have anyone else. So, it is very likely either Antonio Villaraigosa (Mayor of Los Angeles) or Gavin Newsom (Mayor of San Francisco) will become the next Governor of California. They've both pledged to sign a gender-neutral Marriage Act.

    Posted by: John | May 14, 2008 9:03:46 PM


  12. Brother Zeke : - )

    Had someone asked me [and several million others, though, of course, they didn't], I would have advised an incremental approach. As the "horror" [in homophobes' eyes, not mine] of gay MARRIAGE has already been set loose among them, we have no sensible choice but to keep pushing for full marriage equality but understanding that "just" getting civil unions or domestic partnerships at any given point in time is not a defeat but another step closer to complete victory.

    As some know, Barney Frank, Dianne Feinstein, and most other Dems lacerated SF Mayor Gavin Newsom for his marriage mandate which led directly to this court case. I totally disagree with them because the difference between a couple of couples in Hawaii or some other state simply "scaring the horses" and creating that first backlash and "the moveable middle" and mainstream media seeing or reading about THOUSANDS of couples—young/older; black, white, brown, Asian; male/female, some with kids of all ages in tow—the panoply of ther REAL rainbow that we are I am convinced opened eyes, minds, and hearts. Maybe not this court's; maybe not enough to defeat the ballot measure; but I believe we moved farther faster in those few weeks than we have in years.

    Equality California paid for some serious research during the last year that indicates that opinions in the state are now virtually tied.

    Overall fit? For once, I'll be brief. This is the order of importance that I place on our issues:

    1. Protecting LGBT youth from hating themselves and being victimized by the hatred of others.
    2. LGBT job non-discrimation laws. [Above #3 simply because 2 affects ALL of us.]
    3. MARRIAGE equality [or its lesser variants ON THE ROAD TO the real thing]. WORDS DO MATTER. Attendant to this would be citizenship access to foreign-born partners.
    4. The same kind of parenting rights that straight parents have. No more judicial/child welfare agency bullshit when one straight parent/one gay parent marriages/relationships break up. E.g., enough with the, "Sole custody goes to the straight parent," or "Gay partner of divorcee will not be allowed within 100 miles of children."
    5. Military open to LGBTs.
    6. Respect in the media. Not a "right" per se [though it might be argued it's related to "pursuit of happiness"], so it's not something that can be legislated or adjudicated, but I think WE have a right to demand it from news media and, though this is FAR trickier] from producers of TV and movies and music. If we're made "a joke," if we're demonized, we should put whatever pressure we can on them and their sponsors to stop.

    Until all of the above is achieved nationally, our Golden Gate is open.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | May 14, 2008 10:21:54 PM


  13. Thanks MICHAEL.

    As I expected, a thoughtful, well reasoned and informative response.

    Word for word I couldn't agree with you more.

    WOW, just like old times! It's refreshing! :)

    I too believe we need to take the incremental approach to marriage equality. Rights first, name later.

    Right now however we have to play the hand we've been dealt. I think it's very important that we don't go off in a tizzy like Chicken Little screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!". If we act as if a ruling in favor of gay marriage is the death knell for Democrats in November the Republican's will exploit our fears and we will create a self fulfilling prophesy that is by NO means destiny.

    The political environment really is different than it was in 2004 and the 2004 presidential loss was never as much about gay marriage as it was about a weak candidate, an impotent DNC and YET ANOTHER inept campaign that couldn't even respond to swift boat attacks. Let's not forget that Gore "lost" in 2000 with no gay marriage issue looming across the country even though he was handed a nation that had a budget surplus, peace, prosperity and a general sense of well being in the country. The campaign should have been nothing more than going through the motions. GEORGE W. BUSH, THE IDIOT was the opponent after all. Instead, the lame Democratic campaign strategists lost two "gimme's" in a row. After their second virtually impossible to screw up campaign and loss they were desperately in need of a scapegoat and in 2004 we were an all too easy target.

    I believe that we have to take our advancements when and where we can get them. There is no "wrong" time for advancements in fairness, justice and equality. There is no time too soon to gain human or civil rights. 1776 wasn't the wrong time, 1885 wasn't the wrong time, 1969 wasn't the wrong time but in each case there were many people who claimed that it was the wrong time.

    This ruling may certainly may certainly mean that we need to work harder and faster to educate and inform the American people but we should see this as an opportunity not a curse. Every minute we spend repeating the Republican "fear and smear" talking points and fretting over what they might or might not do to exploit the ruling, the less time we are focusing on educating and informing voters.

    As a former rodeo cowboy I encourage EVERYONE to get a good hold of your cojones and prepare to ride this bull for the full eight seconds. We won't win this thing whining and crying. We'll only win it with righteous indignation and determination.

    I for one REFUSE to let the Democratic Party scapegoat us again for their incompetence. They better have their sh*t together this time!

    Posted by: Zeke | May 14, 2008 11:12:41 PM


  14. http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/get-me-to-the-church-on-time-and-a-half-for-overtime/2223/

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | May 14, 2008 11:27:00 PM


  15. Don't expect a favorable ruling. The Court knows that any pro-gay decision would probably be short-lived in effect, since voters may very well overturn the decision with a constitutional amendment this November. The constitutional amendment would mean gay marriage CANNOT be passed by the legislature or by judicial decree. It would be almost futile for them to issue a decision that makes gay marriage legal for a mere five months. Further, rarely do these decisions make gay marriage legal immediately. They usually give the legislature months to legalize by statute.
    Finally, Calitics reports that Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar's only openly gay law clerk abruptly resigned today.
    Then, another source intimately familiar with the case and the Court, reports tonight that the Court is prepared to take a step that stands in stark contrast to their bold and courageous position in Perez v. Sharp. Specifically, it looks like we might get a decision that dramatically rules against granting individuals the freedom to marry whomever they choose,which is what the Washington Supreme Court ruled just last year. The source claims that only one justice voted for same-sex marriage. It is after all, an election year.

    Posted by: Marcos | May 15, 2008 12:09:14 AM


  16. I'VE NEVER UNDERSTOOD WHY THIS IS EVEN AN ISSUE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE CAN GO TO A CHURCH AND BE LEGALLY MARRIED. IT SEEMS TO ME SINCE MARRIAGE IS A LEGAL CONTRACT YOU SHOULD HAVE TO GO TO A GOVERMENT FACILITY TO MAKE THINGS LEGAL. IF YOU WANT YOU CAN THEN GO GET YOUR UNION BLESSED BY THE CHURCH OF YOUR CHOICE. SINCE MARRIAGE IS A LEGAL CONTRACT HOW CAN YOU LIMIT IT ON THE BASIS OF THE SEXUAL GENDER OF THE COUPLE? IMAGINE IF THE LAW SAID ONLY MEN COULD BUY CARS OR ONLY WOMEN COULD BUY HOUSES? THESE REQUIRE LEGAL DOCUMENTS AS WELL.

    IT JUST MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

    Posted by: dw314 | May 15, 2008 6:21:09 AM


  17. BREAKING NEWS ON KCBS...PROPOSITION 22 RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

    Posted by: John | May 15, 2008 1:06:01 PM


  18. MARCOS, I'm glad to see that your sources and speculations weren't credible.

    Posted by: Zeke | May 15, 2008 2:35:06 PM


  19. I sort of hate to respond to this, given the CA decision, but...

    "Spare fucking me, AG! "Left coasters"? Girlfriend, I've lived at the corner of Sodom & Gomorrah for years!"

    Glad to hear it. So what the hell was up with your petty, dismissive "Beserkeley?"

    "Now you're telling us it showed something else? So my opinion remains the same in relation to the spin of 'don't blame us professional queens.'"

    I was not the one originally linking to or defending the conclusion that the previous poster and the article to which he linked. In fact if you wanted to argue that the conclusion isn't supported by the study, fine by me. But instead you resorted to namecalling.

    "PS: You're displaying your own anti-intellectual 'foolness' by coining, 'ad hominem attacks on actual academic studies.'"

    You essentially called Berkeley students and faculty insane. I claimed that your doing so was equivalent to what right-wing mouthpieces do when they hear something they don't like. This is untrue how?

    "One could make ad hominem attacks on those who conducted the studies but not the studies themselves."

    Indeed you could. In fact, you basically did.

    "And how "academic" this one was...that is, scientific, objective, valid, fill-in-the-blank...is in the eye of the beholder."

    No, it's not. It's pretty clear you didn't actually look at the study before you decided to dismiss it, which made your "beserk" comment even more peevish.

    "argument would have been better served had you also mentioned the permeation of state-level versions of DOMA."

    Actually, I did. My argument was that the majority of the states that implemented state-level DOMAs and constitutional bans...have already done so and therefore cannot have it on the ballot again. So, yes, I did mention them.

    "Understanding [unlike most gays] that federal DOMA legally did nothing for the states, all but maybe half a dozen passed their own versions. And several, as you say, have added state constitutional amendments on top of that. "

    Looks like we agree on this. Which is why I question how much of a wedge issue this could be since the first wave of knee-jerk reactions has passed. Do you forsee and equally "big" reaction to this as post-Massachutesess?

    "The larger point is that millions of American voters remain brainwashed about the ongoing 'threat' of 'the homosexual agenda' generally. The attention to the marriage equality issue has distracted too many of us from their secondary and growing assault on any attempt to organize or protect gay kids in public schools—in the name of 'religious freedom.'"

    I don't argue with this. I do argue with the premise that this should in some way halt the progress of marriage in all 50 states (or at least those that have made progress) until the whole nation is on board. This is what an above poster seemed to imply.

    "McCain has already started talking about stopping 'activist judges' [code for pro gay equality judges]—and will exploit it more and more between now and November. That their fears are absurd is beside the point."

    Which made *your* attack on Berkeley academics all the more puzzling to me, given that the same shit-slinging the GOP likes to do against academic, peer-reviewed material is akin to the shit-slinging they do against the judiciary, which is an attack on the whole premise of our government.

    "Yes, their fears about the ecomomy might well trump their fears of us, but if you think Karl Rove is the only masterful, ruthless Republican you need to go back to class."

    Um, it's pretty clear from my post above that I think Rove failed.

    Seriously, my only real anger at your post was your resorting to the same tactics that Republicans use when they want to dismiss something they don't like. The undermine its credibility with namecalling and basically making shit up.

    Posted by: AG | May 15, 2008 7:09:26 PM


  20. Correction: You're correct, I didn't mention state level DOMAs, only constitutional amendments. However, most of the conservative states that are strongly against SSM already have DOMAs of one sort or another already on the books. In fact, the state amendments were to ensure what happened in California today did not happen in those states. So again, I don't see a lot of states are able to use this as a wedge issue, given that they already have these laws on the books.

    Posted by: AG | May 15, 2008 8:12:08 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «News: Al Reynolds, Playboy, The Mole, 90210, Ohio University« «