U.S. - gay marriage opponents to fight California ruling
- added May 16, 2008
- 107 responses
-

-
-
-
- muckraker
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- News and Politics (38300)
- Politics (26688)
- News (20532)
- Sex and Love (4613)
- Gay (1825)
- Current News US (1448)
- Law (1231)
- California (700)
- Gay Rights (501)
- Marriage (397)
- Gay Marriage (223)
- Homophobia (162)
- Supreme Court (98)
- Arnold Schwarzenegger (66)
SAN FRANCISCO - Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation's most populous state.
A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.
If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.
"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. "The remedy is a constitutional amendment."
With a stroke of a pen Thursday, the Republican-dominated court swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation.
The 4-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
"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," George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.
Gay marriage opponents, meanwhile, derided the ruling as an example of judicial overreaching in which the opinions of a few justices trumped the will of Californians.
The last time the state's voters were asked to express their views on same-sex marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday struck down both statutes.
Still, backers of a proposed November ballot measure that would allow Californians to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage said the court's decision would ultimately help their cause.
"(The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups helping to underwrite the gay marriage ban campaign. "I do think it will activate and energize Californians. I'm more confident than ever that we will be able to pass this amendment come November."
To date, 26 states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
In the past few years, courts in New York, Maryland and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage, and New Jersey's highest court gave the state lawmakers the option of establishing civil unions as an alternative.
A conservative group said it would ask California's Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That's when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California's constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.
If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions to become final.
"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. "The remedy is a constitutional amendment."
With a stroke of a pen Thursday, the Republican-dominated court swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation.
The 4-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald George said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.
"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," George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.
Gay marriage opponents, meanwhile, derided the ruling as an example of judicial overreaching in which the opinions of a few justices trumped the will of Californians.
The last time the state's voters were asked to express their views on same-sex marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.
Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.
The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday struck down both statutes.
Still, backers of a proposed November ballot measure that would allow Californians to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage said the court's decision would ultimately help their cause.
"(The ruling) is not the way a democracy is supposed to handle these sorts of heartfelt, divisive issues," said Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the groups helping to underwrite the gay marriage ban campaign. "I do think it will activate and energize Californians. I'm more confident than ever that we will be able to pass this amendment come November."
To date, 26 states have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.
In the past few years, courts in New York, Maryland and Washington state have refused to allow gay marriage, and New Jersey's highest court gave the state lawmakers the option of establishing civil unions as an alternative.
-
The best way for these intrusive meddlers to oppose gay marriage is to not marry someone of the same sex. Beyond that, this law has nothing to do with them, and does not affect them in any way.
-
-
-
-
- 96thdayofrage
- 4 months ago
-
-
Yes, it does affect them in a big way
as the family goes... so goes the nation -
Well then it's up to you to keep your family strong. Not intrude in on others.
-
All I have to say is: Civil Rights. Don't people realize that this isn't a privilege but A RIGHT for anyone to marry who they wish? How does someone else's personal life matter to you? People need to worry about their own lives instead of others'.
-
Mornrail-
Try to raise a family when the culture is fighting you 24/7 as parents..
I do not think that you have gone through that experience yet.
Look at the statistics for teenagers. go to the schools, listen to the news.
It is a mess !! -
or raise, even.
homosexuality is not an assault on culture.
homosexuality is part of our culture.
get used to it. -
Meli8
What about responsibilities for once. It is always about rights. That is we hear.
The ME generation is leaving this country into a mess.
This coming generation is going to pay the price. Be ready for a wake up call.
At that time you will understand how somebody else life affects you. -
My message to the opponents:
We will not stand down
We will not give up
We will continue to fight for what we deserve
We are equal and we will show you we deserve to be equal!-
-
-
-
- woodywoodbeck
- 4 months ago
-
-
"Yes, it does affect them in a big way , as the family goes... so goes the nation."
Then this nation has already slid off into hell. The state is responsible for wrecking more families than it has ever built.
The truth is that it does not affect anyone who is not gay and married. It just aggrivates homphobic meddlers who want to be able to run someone else's life to make their lives more meaningful. The fact is that everyone has to answer to God for himself or herself. We can only govern ourselves, no one else. In the end, straights have no more say in the decisions of gay couples than gays have in the decisions of straight couples. The US Constitution actually supports everyone freely being who they are as long as it doesn't break the law. Thus, there never should have been laws written that made factions of life illegal because these were not the majority or the status quo.
These laws neither dissolve mor make illegal heterosexual familes and unions. It merely allows LGBT community to persue their love on their terms, and not on the terms of the National Baptist Convention.-
-
-
-
- 96thdayofrage
- 4 months ago
-
-
Huzzah for tolerance and diversity! I vowed to never get married as a straight person, until my gay friends had the right to marry in California as well. Now that California's on the right track, I can't wait to see which state legalizes gay marriage next!
-
-
-
-
- MissJonaLyn
- 4 months ago
-
-
could you quantify "decades of tradition"?
AMEN WOODY! -
soleil,
my brother struggled with his own homosexuality for years, and it was only after he confided in my parents (now in their 60's) that the relationships in our family were actually strengthened. So your argument doesnt hold up.
It was not easy for them to accept, but nothing worth its weight in life is.
You'll have to do a little soul searching, but trust me, it'll do you good.-
-
-
-
- stephenthomson
- 4 months ago
-
-
Who cares?? Everybody is gettin all lathered up over such a non issue while your teeth fall out, you can't get a job, and you kids can't read. I would say their are more pressing things to worry about, but I'm not worried about this at all. Props to Cali for at least attempting to bring equal rights for PEOPLE to the forefront.
-
Stephen-
Parental love for their children is unconditional. I do understand.
That does not means that gay marriage is good for society -
Why is it that when people try to take a postive step forward there are other people there trying to push back? I understand having different viewpoints,because everyone is entitled to their own, but things like homosexuality and envrionmental are here to stay. They are undeniable,standing in front of us, looking us straight in the eye, and begging to be recognized.
-
-
-
-
- Priskillet
- 4 months ago
-
-
Soliel, do you have any examples from credible sources? If not, either shut up or quit spreading misinformation. Wait and see, I can guarantee you that the Independent Republic of California will suffer negligible or no ill effects from this ruling. Also, I agree that this should have been a popular vote. It would have passed anyway though.
By the way, do you even live in California or Massechussets?-
-
-
-
- Dmitri_Molotov
- 4 months ago
-
-
if gay people want to put themseleves through the drudges of marriage why not let them? say what you want but two gay guys getting married does not affect anyone but them. the people fighting this are probably religious conservative nuts. Keep your bible to yourself and mind your own business. Its funny how, ingeneral, the most judgmental people are the religious ones. “Do not judge, or you too will be judged” (Matthew 7:1). Listen to your good book christians
-
i personally dont like it, but it is a free country, for the most part
-
can someone make a well thought out argument as to why gay marraige is bad for society besides "the Bible says so?"
-
-
-
-
- keeshii768
- 4 months ago
-
-
i think u kill the argument when u take the bible out of it.
-
For the very first time a U.S. hight court has specifically
ruled that "orientation" should be treated exactly the same way that race is in U.S. law.
The 4.6 million of Californians who disagree with it and voted for Prop 22, are now the moral equivalent of racists.
Those who see marriage as a sacred union of husband and wife are now bigots.
Just 4 judges put their own preferences ahead of millions.
Even courts in liberal states like New York, Maryland and Washington could tell the difference between marriage and bigotry.
Voters in 27 states have voted to put state marriage amendments in their state constitutions to prevent activist judges like California.
It is a sad day for families -
yep there's a ban on same sex marriage in Tennessee. This ruling could go all the way to the supreme court and if they rule in favor for California then same-sex couples will be able to marry anywhere in the U.S.
-
Do people forget that the legalization of marriage, regardless of orientation actually PROMOTES and STRENGTHENS the institution of marriage because of its traditional values of monogamy and human-to-human bonds?
Every argument one can ever come up with against same-sex marriage has a much stronger and rational counter-point...debate me, I dare you.-
-
-
-
- letushavepeace
- 4 months ago
-
-
Tell me if I'm wrong but didnt the majority voted against it? If the majority wants it, then the majority gets it. It looks like they dont want gay marriage in thier state, so it should be thier wish not to get it. Oh,. and just because some people dont agree with gay marriage doesnt make them homophobes or bigots.
-
-
-
-
- ctrl_alt_del
- 4 months ago
-
-
I'll crush this one. While we like to believe the body politic should decide national law, there are instances when decisions like this cannot be left for people to vote, quite simply, because a lot of people lack the ability to view an issue rationally. A good example of this is the Emancipation Proclamation, which was a very unpopular move on a nationalistic level, but you know, some would argue that slavery is a bad thing, so, Abe made a judgement call. I believe the subject of gay marriage falls under the same jurisdiction. As West Virginia just demonstrated, we do not have the collective objectivity to make sound decisions that will affect millions of people in this country. We can argue semantics till we are blue in the face, but this country has a history of it's people not having the clarity to make simple decisions that will benefit us ALL, and not just a couple of select classes. Gay marriage is clearly one of these issues. And if you think this is causing the demise of the American family, ha, your just not paying attention to issue that actually matter, like, oh I don't know, education, healthcare, the disproportionate increase of inflation vs worker pay. I think those qualify as problems that we as a society need be concerned about.
-
A majority of the people didn't want blacks in the same schools and such. but the government saw other wise
-
agreed.
-
I understand, but personally I'm a little bias to the whole thing myself. I dont really understand why they want to get married anyway, other than just for the heck of it.
-
-
-
-
- ctrl_alt_del
- 4 months ago
-
-
There's such a thing as poor sports on both sides of the fence here....for "losing" and for "winning"---for that picture is a clear representation of poor sports winning.
As for people opposing a ruling....what a waste of breath. It's only a matter of time before it will be allowed in all the states. Why bother fighting it?
If you don't like it that's fine. If you don't like it I think people should be accepting of that and not toss that over used word of homophobic around. If you don't like something it doesn't mean you're afraid of it....sometimes you just don't like it.
I dislike stupid people but I'm not afraid of them.
I think the world is in a hand basket and no one is really caring where it's going as long as the way it's going has them getting what they want. -
Wow, like gay people are not human beings? Why did your parents get married? Why do your friends? Are their reasons not the same? Anyone who has a problem with gay marriage needs to examine themselves a little more closely because it has nothing to do with you. Just like heterosexual relationships...
-
If you are christian and you do not stand up for the rights of gays then you are failing in the true meaning of being a christian. If you truely belive in your religion it is your duty to stand up for the persecuted and help them as best you can. In this case it is gay people not having equal rights to straights for being the way GOD made them.
Gays having the rights to marry will never affect your life negativly. If your children are straight then they will be straight regardless of how much gay information the media throws at them. And the same is true, your children would be gay regardless of how much straight information was thrown at them. -
Here you are again soleil10.
What news? I still haven't readthe book you pointed out. So please, right now, besides that book, site sources of how same sex marriage hurts children and the country. Please, a link, not just
"as the family goes, so does the nation" or "children deserve a father and a mother"-
-
-
-
- CarlosIsDown
- 4 months ago
-
-
It seems that the wording of these propositions is a big deal to people who have lost the ability to think for themselves.
If a proposition says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," than it might get 60%. If it says, "Marriage between a woman and a woman is permitted in California," it would probably get 70%. -
I have noting against gay people! Do what ever floats your boat its a free country. Were called America for a reason. FREEDOM
-
-
-
-
- currentkid
- 4 months ago
-
-
and in america there's a thing called dissent, that's what makes it great.
-
Tolerance, that's supposed to be the first thing they teach you in church, which is probably why you don't remember it.
-
I really cant see any argument against it... If you believe in freedom/ American ideals then you should believe that gay marriage should be allowed... Am I missing something here?
-
I dont understand, since when can the government tell us who we can and cant love?
-
all u need is love
