California high court upholds same-sex marriage ban
Story Highlights
NEW: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praises court for leaving 18,000 marriages intact
Dissenting opinion says decision "fundamentally alters" state constitution
Court's 6-1 ruling met with chants of "shame on you" from crowd of about 1,000
Voters in November approved ban on same-sex marriage
SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- The California Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a ban on same-sex marriage that state voters passed in November, but it allowed about 18,000 marriages performed before the ban to remain valid.
The 6-1 decision was met with chants of "shame on you" from a crowd of about 1,000 people who gathered outside the court building in San Francisco.
"It's nice that my marriage is still intact, but that's not the point," said Kathleen White, who married her partner in 2008. "The point is that everybody should have the same civil rights across the board."
Opponents of the ban argued that the controversial Proposition 8 improperly altered the California Constitution to restrict a fundamental right guaranteed in the state's charter.
But the court found the measure restricted the designation of marriage "while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of same-sex couples." Watch what was at stake »
"We further conclude that Proposition 8 does not apply retroactively and therefore that the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid," California Chief Justice Ronald George wrote.
The court, which is dominated by Republican appointees, ruled in May 2008 that the state constitution guaranteed gay and lesbian couples the "basic civil right" to marry. The 4-3 decision came four years after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
But in November, state voters approved the Proposition 8 ballot initiative 52 percent to 48 percent. The measure provided that only heterosexual unions would be recognized as marriages by the state.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who opposed the initiative, praised the court for leaving the previous marriages intact and urged opponents of the decision to respond "peacefully and lawfully."
"While I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage, as governor of California, I will uphold the decision of the California Supreme Court," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.
Supporters of the proposition argued that Californians long have had the right to change their state constitution through ballot initiatives. The effort to overturn the restriction "strikes directly at the heart of California's system of government," a brief by the conservative Family Research Council argued.
CaliforniaAttorney General Jerry Brown sided with advocates of same-sex marriage, stating in court papers that Proposition 8 "put the fundamental rights of a minority group to a popular vote." And in his dissenting opinion, Justice Carlos Moreno wrote that the measure "violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning."
"The majority's holding is not just a defeat for same-sex couples, but for any minority group that seeks the protection of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution," Moreno wrote.
Proposition 8's approval sparked protests against and criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which strongly supported the measure.
Opponents of the ban said the Utah-based church donated a majority of the money that funded the Proposition 8 campaign. But the Mormons said they were being unfairly singled out for criticism when other religious leaders -- including Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles -- also supported the ban.
Tuesday's decision left unaddressed whether same-sex marriages performed in other states before the ban was adopted would be recognized in California.
Four states -- Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Iowa -- allow same-sex marriages. A Vermont law making such marriages legal will take effect in September.
On May 6, same-sex marriage became legal in Maine as Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill less than an hour after the state Legislature approved it.
In April, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it is illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry. The first gay marriages in the state took place April 27.
The District of Columbia voted May 5 to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, though it does not itself give marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In April, New York Gov. David Paterson introduced legislation to make same-sex marriage legal in his state.
New Hampshire's move to legalize same-sex marriage hit a road bump Wednesday after that state's House of Representatives did not agree to legislation changes made by the governor. iReport.com: React to court decision and share photos, video
Both the House and Senate already had approved allowing gay couples to marry. But Gov. John Lynch, a three-term Democrat, said he would sign a same-sex marriage bill only if it provides "the strongest and clearest protections for religious institutions and associations, and for the individuals working with such institutions."
The House on Wednesday fell two votes short of approving Lynch's language. The chamber then voted to send the legislation to a committee to be considered further.
All AboutCalifornia • Same-Sex Marriage • Constitutional Law



Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/26/california.same.sex.marriage/index.html


SAVE THIS EMAIL THIS Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.


� 2008 Cable News Network
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);

Prop 8, all over again.

Anti-Gay Marriage Initiative Funders Being Unfairly Forced to Accept Responsibility for Their Actions
POSTED BY: Dennis DiClaudio

When will the cruel persecution of people who persecute homosexuals come to an end?

Look, these people just want to live their lives the way they prefer -- making sure that a small minority of the population is denied the right to live their lives the way they prefer -- in quiet, anonymous isolation from consequence. Why can't we just leave these people alone, so that they can get back to interfering with our personal freedoms in peace...
A federal judge Thursday denied a request by Proposition 8 supporters to withhold disclosure of late campaign donors to California's same-sex marriage ban, saying the public has a right to know.
Claiming donors have been harassed, attorneys for Proposition 8 had sought a preliminary injunction to keep secret the identities of 1,600 donors who made contributions just before or after voters approved the measure on Nov. 4.
They asserted that First Amendment rights to be free from retaliation outweigh the state's interest in disclosure.
The judge, unfortunately, disagreed, stating that "the state is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure."
Well, maybe not. But it's certainly not facilitating a bunch of covert gay-bashing, either. And isn't that really what the state is supposed to be doing? (I mean, secretly. Like, on the DL.)
Here's the problem with this: If people aren't allowed to anonymously shovel money into campaigns against minority groups, then shoveling money into campaigns against minority groups suddenly gets less fun. Because then you might have to take responsibility for your actions and convictions, and nobody wants to do that if your actions and convictions are mean-spirited and petty.
So, what happens is you get less people funding these hate campaigns against minorities, and then you get less people hating minorities. And then, eventually, people start to think about minorities as if they were actual people who live actual lives full of actual emotions and relationships. And that's when things start getting totally out of control.
I mean, look what happened with the blacks.

Rant on Prop 8, the church and who I am.

I've heard a few people saw things to the effect of "It's about time you realized how bad the LDS church is." Okay - there is nothing to realize. I've always known exactly where the church stands on what in everything and still supported them cause there where things I believed in. And there are still things I believe in. I did not do the "right" or "Wrong" thing when I sent in my letter of resignation, it was just what I did. I felt the church did many things it said they would never do, and went about it as sneaky as they could. As long as I have been a member of the church, when it came to voting they said do your homework, do research get a good ideas of all parties involved, and make sure you have your facts, after that pray about it and the Lord will guide you.

Doctrine and Covenants 134:9

All of a sudden, a new prophet is running the church and there reversing there word. Gorden B Hinkley would never of done this. The fact that the church did things like have each ward in Utah donate $2,000 to make the money add up so they could get there tax exempt status makes me sick. The church is doing exactly the things they said they would never do and I feel this is yet another dark spot on the church history books. Yes, for a very long time I've been a bisexual and a member of the church. Guess what? I was LDS before I figured out I liked girls and was active in the church when I knew it was lingering there. Being a bisexual is a big part of me and my life, I have been this way for a long time but I have been LDS longer. I may have left the church, but I still support some of there ideals.

Let me get this straght I do not believe in organized religion. I think its crap, and I think every organized religion is out for them selfs in the end and they always will be. I've seen people of every religion act high and mighty, I see it everyday. The Mormons are just one of them. Call them what you want, I know your religion has a million flaws too, weather you think so or not, at lest I acknowledge mine.