Good ruling by the California Supremes. Now, if we can couple the Full Faith and Credit Clause with the USSC's Loving v Virginia decision, we might see it become the law of the land.
"Agitate." - Frederick Douglass, when asked by a younger man what he should do with his life
Governor Arnold has said that he will support the decision of the court fully. He intends to comply with it in letter and spirit.
A good thing just got better.
If its a legal marrige in CA teh marrige itself must be recognized nationaly...now we jsut need to get teh rest of the states to get there heads out of their asses.
This is fantastic news!! Now maybe the country will begin to understand that marriage is a basic civil right. Being from Massachusetts this is a great anniversary gift for our 4th year of the legalization of gay marriage on May 17th. For the truth about gay marriage check out our trailer. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue
www.OUTTAKEonline.com
Good stuff. Why shouldn't GLBT people have the opportunity to enter into the same disastrous and risky legal contracts that heterosexuals have had for thousands of years? 
Seriously, it's about damn time. California is a trend-setter, so we can expect to see similar decisions in other states.
Aces! Now I can convince the DP to be a legally wedded DP with a wedding in CA
Obama til Denver,
In the same snarky vein: Who am I to deny anyone - of either orientation - the right to be just as miserable as I was for three years?
"1. This ruling is from the Supreme Court of California. It can not be over-ruled by any other Court. It is law, as of now, in California."
Not exactly true. The loser could appeal to SCOTUS if the CalSupCt based their decision on the states need a compelling reason to interfere with ones federal constitutional right to familial relationships. Federal equal protection can be appealed to SCOTUS.
Which is how I understand it. (Only read digests of opinion.)
PRof.
Yay!!! We have won a battle.
Now onto converting kids, legalizing polygamy and bestiality and banning the bible. Charge!
Obama Til Denver, I utterly agree with your assessment, "the same disastrous and risky legal contracts that heterosexuals have had for thousands of years". The right to get married has been low on my wish list as a dyke for decades now. At the top are such critical "lesbian" rights as peace, a clean environment, an end to capitalism, children's rights, and adequate nutrition for the world. (No snark, that really is my list.)
Still, I'm kinda blown away today. I just didn't think it would happen.
Marriage, as a defined legal concept, has been in flux for hundreds of years, and this is just one more change I've seen within my lifetime. I felt more strongly about the overturn of miscegenation laws, which occurred in my childhood and which my mother made sure we celebrated at the time. I felt equally strongly about the changes brought about by feminism, the end of married women being legally subsumed into their husbands, changes in credit, property ownership, access to divorce, and redefinition of marital rape. All during the 1970s.
I personally think the state should get out of the business of regulating marriage and reduce it to a civil contract for everyone. If you want more, if you define it spiritually, then find a church who will marry you. My relationships with women don't feel altered by this ruling.
But I can imagine it will do a lot to churn up the landscape out there, and if it makes EVERYBODY reconsider the nature of commitment, if it helps further marriage liberation for all of us (not just queers), as past revisions of marriage law have, I'll be thrilled.
Professor Challenger -
It was based on STATE OF CALIFORNIA Equal Protection grounds, NOT Federal Equal Protection grounds. The decision can not be appealed to SCOTUS. There is no Federal question.
The decision of the Court can not be overturned short of amending the Constitution of California.
Which, as I point out in the post, is being attempted this fall. The good news is -- as either a prior commenter or someone elsewhere notes -- turnout this fall should be extraordinary. I expect the measure to fail.
This is great news. Thanks Jesse!
Yes, great news! And thanks for clarifying that there's no basis for SCOTUS. Well done!
Wow.
Congratulations.
I'm thrilled with this decision.
But I also want to say to you people who are so cynical about marriage: it's not always like you describe. We've been married nine years and are both quite happy with the marriage and each other. It is possible.
I am pretty sure that the SCOTUS could make up a federal reason, but that only 3 of the culture warriors want to take it up.
The Chief Justice may be closeted, but doesn't appear to be self-hating. He is much more focused on giving corporations all the power and destroying workers' rights.
wengler -
Just as Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) on a 6-3 vote struck down the law criminalizing homosexual sex in Texas (and thus, did the same for ALL such laws nationwide), it did so on the grounds that intimate consensual sexual conduct was protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
I see NO way the current U.S. Supreme Court, given Lawrence, a) could take a case which has no federal question (yeah, don't bring up Bush v. Gore -- that had one), and b) if by an act of Buddha the case was docketed, the same 6-3 majority would have to rule the same way. At worse, we'd get a 5-4 ruling. Under the 14th Amendment due process, which is the same Amendment which holds the Equal Protection Clause under which -- in the California Constitution's equivalent -- the Supreme Court of California ruled yesterday.
This is DONE.
The only risk now is the November proposed constitutional amendment. The good news is, Obama is going to be the nominee baring the creek rising and the sun not shining. Which means the largest turnout in the last 30-40 years, most of it for the Democrats. If ever there was a chance to vote that sucker down, this is that chance.
Bring it on.
hey any one see hillarys statment on this one...she feels that the best way to acheive equlity is through "civil unions"...we win one, we win it big tiem, adn she can't help but "triangulate" towards teh right on it...pathetic.
Hurray!
Moonglum wrote:
If its a legal marrige in CA teh marrige itself must be recognized nationaly...now we jsut need to get teh rest of the states to get there heads out of their asses.
Alas this is not a true legal statement. The caselaw I'm thinking of involved one state not recognizing a "common law marriage" in another state. We still have a long way to go.
I can see gay and lesbian couples with winter and spring-summer houses in CA and MA, respectively.
I'm glad for my gay and lesbian friends, wherever they are. Have love, have happiness, have children (if you wish).
Jen, it's complex. But broadly, the federal DOMA prevents the application of full faith and credit to same-sex marriages.
Maggie, thanks for sticking rigidly to your position all these years. Those of us who are able to get practical protections for our kids and spouses from this ruling sometimes fail to recognize the fore-mothers who went before us in forcing changes to family law in the 1970s. Those changes-- outlawing marital rape and couverture as well as other advances for women like independent credit ratings--all contributed to this victory, which would have been impossible but for the changes of second-wave feminism.
That said, civil marriage is a civil contract. Not a sacrament, or a party, but a contract with an established and predictable history of how its parties will be treated by the state. And that's not at all about how anyone feels, it's about what taxes we owe and what happens to our bodies when we die.
Hey:
This also ratchets up the pressure in NJ, where the Supremes are taking a long hard look at the current CU scheme, which has been a failure.
The NJ Supremes have been very clear that this state has a progressive constitutional legacy. I think we're going to be hearing wedding bells shortly in the Garden State as well. The NJ Supremes are sure to cite the CA and MA decisions.
hey any one see hillarys statment on this one...she feels that the best way to acheive equlity is through "civil unions"...we win one, we win it big tiem, adn she can't help but "triangulate" towards teh right on it...pathetic.
Responding to the above quote which is singling out one candidate over the other. *sighs*
Both Obama and Clinton made essentially the same statement.
Obama was the FIRST to respond.
He said, Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.
Later, Clinton made her statement, Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
BOTH OF THESE STATEMENTS SUCK.
Both of them are saying, screw the gays. It's okay with me if I have to screw over the gays in order to get even a few religious votes. Furthermore, I'm willing to take back the civil rights of those people in the states who actually DO have marriage, by working for separate but actually not very equal "civil unions".
Which the Supreme Court of California just utterly trashed in their decision yesterday.
If I wanted to trash these statements more, and I do, I'd probably trash Clinton's slightly more, 'cause of her addition of the "committed relationships" bullshit. What? You have to be in a committed relationship in order to have a ceremony? No quickie Las Vegas ceremony for them?
Both candidates are selling out Teh Gays on every level. Just pure bullshit.
Commenting by HaloScan
