Decision was handed down today.
The decision doesn’t legalize SSM or reinstate the marriages performed in San Francisco. The case will ultimately be decided by the CA supreme court (and then perhaps by voter initiative seeking to amend the state constitution).
Still, it sounds like a strong decision and definitely a big win for the good guys.
Unfortunately, it’s probably only a temporary victory. This comes from your cite:
Missouri adopted the same-sex marriage ban with only 28% of us voting against it. I don’t know how the other states did, but I don’t think it was much different. Obviously, this is California we’re talking about here, but I still think it would be difficult to defeat such an amendment if it were put to a public vote.
Still, I hope I live long enough to see the day when, as Dick Cheney put it, “freedom means freedom for everyone.”
The CA legislature is controlled by Democrats who are currently advancing a same-sex marriage bill. I don’t think they’ll let these anti-marriage bills to the floor.
Yeah, saw this piece of news earlier, and was very heartened by it. But i’m enough of a realist to recognize that there’s still a long way to go. Here’s hoping that this is a sign of future progress.
Hopefully this will advance the cause of the government getting out of the bedroom, and protecting the rights of folks to live as they wish.
Step in the right direction, hope it lasts.
I saw the headline in the Chronicle as I was heading out the door to work. While I was on the freeway, I found myself cackling and hooting uncontrollably. Yeah, it’s just another step in a long process, but damn it feels good. Score one for basic human decency!
A step in the right direction, but using the wrong method. Same-sex marriages should be legal by act of the legislature, not the courts.
Nonsense. This was exactly the proper method. The law banning same-sex marraige ran counter to the California constitution. So the law was overturned. This is precisely why we have judges in this country. And yes, Bricker, before you can start with your customary insinuations of hypocrisy, I would say the same thing if the decision went against me. I might disagree with the reasoning behind the decision, but never with the judge’s authority to make that decision.
The judge is a Republican, too. That’s the best part. One of Pete Wilson’s. Never thought I’d say this, but, Thanks, Pete!
Yes, and I am sure that it is very possible for this to happy the way you wish…
200 years done the line from now! Maybe by then, the man in power would look around and ask himself “We haven’t legalated marriage by now? I never noticed. huh. Me and my husband could theoreticaly get broken up by this law. Well, better correct it through the legislature, for I am sure that no one will have any problem with such a law that negatively affects no one.”
In modern times however, I see no way to gain equal rights besides this.
Just curious, Bricker. Are you saying that the judge’s analysis of the California constitution is wrong? Or are you saying that it’s always wrong to challenge the constitutionality of legislation?
Let me oversimply things for a second. Most states constitutions say, in effect, “People can get married. The state should hand out documents stating that they are married” Now, I understand the fact that many people of the time might not have understood the concepts of those uppity gays wanting the same rights as anyone else, but the way they were written, with words like “equal” and “rights” allow for those concepts of equal rights to be carried out. When the judges actually read the letter of the law, and carry it out, people to call out “Judical Activism”, and ask for as many delays as possible, such as asking for issue to be put before the state legislature.
Or am I misunderstanding?