CA Supreme Court rejects stay on same-sex marriage ruling.
Filed Under: Civil Rights
By on Jun 4th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
CA Supreme Court rejects stay on same-sex marriage ruling.
The California Supreme Court “rejected a bid to freeze” last month’s ruling on gay marriage, “paving the way for same-sex couples to begin walking down the aisle as soon as June 17.” Opponents of same-sex marriage sought to stay the ruling until after the November election, but in a 4-3 ruling, the court rejected their efforts. Yesterday, a constitutional amendment stating “that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” qualified for the November ballot.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Big Oil
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Hagee
Health Care
Immigration
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
McClellan
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sports
Surveillance
Terrorism
Torture
Veterans
Wiretapping
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog Roll
I eagerly await the next appearance of The Performance Artist Known as Daryll™.
He’s been on fire lately. Must be the new blood on the writing staff.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:45 pmI think they’re all back in the closet ’shaking the devil out’ thinking about same sex marriages…..
June 4th, 2008 at 12:47 pmMaybe those who object to this ruling will see by November that California did not go to hell in a hand basket and fall off the face of the earth. Then, maybe again, they won’t. I am so happy that sanity and civil rights for all have prevailed.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:47 pmCool, Lt. Sulu can go ahead and get married on the bridge of the Enterprise. Set phasers to stunning!!
June 4th, 2008 at 12:52 pmWhat a non-issue, marriage is a partnership, doesn’t matter with whom or why. Again separation of church, ie. religious beliefs and state ie. legalalities. Thats what those who braved the ocean for a new land were striving for.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:57 pmCheck off another item on Teh Gay Agenda ™. ;)
June 4th, 2008 at 12:59 pmThe Earth is warming, price of oil is thru the ceiling, world hunger, Aids, Cancer and the Bush Administration. These are problems. Who marries whom, I Really do not care. I’m a confirmed hetrosexual and Do Not Care if gay people marry or not. There are enough real, pressing problems to take up lifetimes, not just days. Let’s try and focus on them, shall we?
June 4th, 2008 at 12:59 pmImpeach Cheney and Bush and Save the Constitution.
.
Why do Loyal Christians(R) seek to controll my genitals?
.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:22 pmdaryll is on his way to San Francisco sporting a “God hates f*gs” t-shirt ; either that , or his empty head has already exploded.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:28 pmThe Talibangelists were already stirred up. Now they will go absolutely bat.hit about “activist judges” which means any jurist who makes a decision that they don’t like.
Bauer, Dobson and Perkins are touting a bogus Robo-poll asserting that a majority of Californians support the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:37 pmUntil someone can produce quantitative evidence demonstrating that gay marriage–either as a broader cultural phenomenon or as a single union between two individuals–has any substantive influence over any other marriage, gay or straight, as an independent variable, there is no valid argument for prohibiting the act in the United States. Period.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:41 pmUntil there is a Constitutional Amendment outlawing the abomination of mixing different fabrics, then I know that this is an immoral country. Ban cotton/wool blends! Pass a Defense of Fabric Amendment!
June 4th, 2008 at 1:44 pm#4 - Best. Comment. Evah.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:45 pmI suspect that California Republicans are already positively drooling at having this issue handed to them, and have wasted no time in getting this wedge issue on the ballot.
They will no doubt use this to get their base riled up and out to the polls in November, hoping this will translate into votes for McCain (I personally suspect that GOP party leadership doesn’t really give a flying fig about whether gays marry or not — they just like to use the issue to light a fire under their base).
However, I really doubt that even this will turn this blue state red. It would take a LOT of changing minds in California for McCain to count on that state.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:48 pm“I welcome the news that the people of California will have the opportunity to decide on the question of the definition of marriage, rather than having that decision made by judicial fiat as the California Supreme Court asserted in their recent ruling.” — John McCain
Wrong. The court did not decide the definition of marriage. They simply applied the Calif.Constitution:
June 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pmWe therefore
conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental
constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution
properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians,
whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
couples.
That brings up and interesting point. Can you amend the Constitution to ban a basic civil right, which is guaranteed by the Constitution? Wouldn’t the amendment itself be unconstitutional?
June 4th, 2008 at 1:58 pmThe fight must continue. Now legalize bestiality!
June 4th, 2008 at 1:59 pmRed Pill @ 11
That’s probably the best summation of this issue I’ve heard. Kudos.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pmOnce this silly issue that same-sex marriage might harm hetro marriage is put aside…could we then address REAL problems? Religious beliefs belong in the privacy of your own home, not mine, not theirs, your own !
June 4th, 2008 at 2:00 pmRightOfAttila Says:
The fight must continue. Now legalize bestiality!
I don’t think you’ve let the legality of that effect your own behavior, but if you’d feel better having it legalized, you should try and get it on a ballot somewhere. Then you and your dog/sheep/goat/mule can proudly and openly display your affection towards each other.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:03 pmtexaslady Says:
Once this silly issue that same-sex marriage might harm hetro marriage is put aside…could we then address REAL problems?
You seriously have to wonder about people who hold the fear that same-sex marriage will destroy “traditional” marriage. Are they that insecure of their own sexuality? Truly lame!
June 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm#11-
June 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pmYour point was well taken by the court as well:
“….permitting same-sex couples access to
the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and
will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage,…”
It’s always edifying when rightards come here to try to piggyback their own favorite sexual practices onto gay marriage.
Ever notice that it’s always a wingnut who’s promoting bestiality or incest as a civil right?
June 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pmbitblt Says:
63 percent: The share of Americans who say “the government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose,” according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll.
bit doesn’t think this stat means what TP wants it to mean.
bitblt doesn’t understand the quoted stat to mean that sixty-three percent of the population believes that same-same gender people can be married. The question asked about government regulating marriage, not about government creating marriage.
While the government may exercise limited regulation of marriage - minimum ages and health regulations, government neither created marriage nor permits men and women to marry. Therefore, asking whether the government should regulate same-same gender marriage seems rather ludicrous to bit.
So, by what authority are two same-same gender people “married?” Surely that authority can’t be the government which never instituted natural(man-woman) marriage in the first place.
In other words bit’s objection is that the question presupposes that two same-same gender people can be married.
This presupposition exists in the minds of some people, but bit thinks the number is very small.
The government cannot make a same-same gender sexual relation a marriage.
The stat would be meaningful if the sixty-three percent were asked what does it take for people to be married.
There are some indicators that so-called same-same gender marriage is truly a non-issue - even among homosexuals.
Since Mass started issuing so-called same-same gender marriage license, it is reported that about 3,000 same-same gender couples have gotten these licenses.
Three thousand couples are 6,000 people. The 2006 population of Mass is 6,437,193. This number represents about 0.09% of the total population. Assuming three percent of the population of Mass are self describe homosexuals, then the 3,000 same-same gender couples represent about 3% of the homosexuals. So, it would seem that the issue of so called same-same gender marriage is a non-issue for even those self describe persons who might be qualified for this type of license.
Further assuming that the numbers in Mass are representative of the entire nation, it seems to bit that putting the nation at risk for 0.09% of the population is one of two things, perhaps both.
It’s stupid, or it rebellious.
Views like this promote intolerance. I went over the line in pointing out what I view as bit’s ignorance and bigotry and now am “subject to moderation”…I guess promoting intolerant views is more more acceptable than calling out someone for doing so. Thanks TP!
June 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm* this was actually posted on the thinkfast for today, but seemed on topic enough to be posted here as well.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pmbitblt, you and Daryll were made for each other. resume the gay sex.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pmoctamethyl -
did any of what bitblt said make ANY sense to you whatsoever? am i alone in thinking that screed is not only biggoted, but also moronic AND nonsensical?
June 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Ever notice that it’s always a wingnut who’s promoting bestiality or incest as a civil right?
You forgot pedophilia.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pmAnyhow, I apologize for spreading troll spit on this thread, but I think it illustrates why this “issue” will keep getting brought up. There are still a lot of morons out there who love to spread fear and hate and even more imbeciles who give these people power.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:18 pmshoeless Says:
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Ever notice that it’s always a wingnut who’s promoting bestiality or incest as a civil right?
You forgot pedophilia.
It’s their bread and butter.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pmoctamethyl Says:
bitblt, you and Daryll were made for each other. resume the gay sex.
Is it considered sex if they just shake off each other’s devils, while flying naked through the sky?
June 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pmDoes one’s eye-sight suffer from shaking off the devil?
Where is Daryll when questions like this are haunting my sleep…
June 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pmIt seems the California Supreme Court shook off the devil of bigotry. Good for them. Think I might have to make a trip to California to do the deed…
June 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pmGeeDubs Says:
It seems the California Supreme Court shook off the devil of bigotry. Good for them. Think I might have to make a trip to California to do the deed…
June 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
To shake off the devil, or get married? :-)
June 4th, 2008 at 2:51 pmRightOfAttila Says:
The fight must continue. Now legalize bestiality!
If you’d stop acting like an a**, perhaps you’d be able to get laid by a human and such legalization would not be necessary.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pmZooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
GeeDubs Says:
It seems the California Supreme Court shook off the devil of bigotry. Good for them. Think I might have to make a trip to California to do the deed…
June 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
To shake off the devil, or get married? :-)
If he is making the trip to shake off his devil, he can fly there naked, according to Daryll. That makes it a lot quicker getting through security at the airport.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pmSurely #17 is joking just to rev up the afternoon a little. Hey, anyone wants love with an animal and it is kept in your own home, have at it. Oh, must be consensual, not like in cases of children to young to consent.
June 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pmI don’t know texaslady. This perversion is a common theme amongst wingnuts. I think the ultimate fetish for these people seems to be having sex with an immature animal to whom you are closely related.
June 4th, 2008 at 4:10 pmThe most shocking thing in this, is how many GOP judges actually voted for civil rights over bigotry! It’s an astonishing and brilliant ruling - and I congratulate the court for finding reason more important than bigotry! Congratulations California, and Congratulations to all of those people that just moved forward in their march to equal rights!
June 4th, 2008 at 4:11 pmWell shoeless, when no one else loves you, what can one do?
June 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pmYou insult me because of my suggestion to carry the legal battle for bestiality. Well, you are now guilty of the very same thing that you accuse us conservatives of - fear of and discrimination based on sexual preference. You hypocrites!
As for PatrioticLiberalChristian:
if you’d stop acting like an a**, perhaps you’d be able to get laid by a person of the opposite sex and such legalization would not be necessary.
And Tweedster:
There was a California referendum in 2000 that banned gay marriage. With the court’s decision, do you really think that liberals respect the ballot? I’ve got a bridge to sell to you…
June 4th, 2008 at 4:37 pmRightOfAttila Says:
You insult me because of my suggestion to carry the legal battle for bestiality. Well, you are now guilty of the very same thing that you accuse us conservatives of -
No we aren’t. I never hear progressives speak of a desire to have sex with animals. That seems to be a right-wing fetish.
June 4th, 2008 at 4:42 pmThis neo-con amendment is going down in flames come November. Their fear tactics aren’t working in this state anymore and once their intolerance and hate is truly exposed, this is going to be a route. Once people like Duncan Hunter and Darrell Issa start cramming their footwear down their throats on a daily basis with the “we can’t have this, it’s immoral and we can’t have our kids seeing this” crusade, they better hope none of their skeletons are sticking out of the ground.
June 4th, 2008 at 4:43 pmRightOfAttila Says:
There was a California referendum in 2000 that banned gay marriage. With the court’s decision, do you really think that liberals respect the ballot? I’ve got a bridge to sell to you…
There was a California Supreme Court ruling which said that referendum was unconstitutional. Did you know that the job of the Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of legislation and referendums? Do you really think that conservatives respect the constitution? I’ve got a sheep to sell to you…
June 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pmIs bestiality against the law ? Which state? And why would this issue be paperworthy ?
June 4th, 2008 at 4:54 pmCome on you conservatives keep out of other people’s bedroom, kitchen, garage whatever.
texaslady Says:
Is bestiality against the law ? Which state?
I don’t know, but I’m guessing it is legal in most red states, since Republicans seem to enjoy it so much.
June 4th, 2008 at 4:59 pmShoeless, in red states the definition of bestiality is when someone like you tries to pro-create.
June 4th, 2008 at 5:09 pmROA - a) please get a sense of humor even if you have to buy one b) only children, aka conservatives need authority figures to tell them when to blow.
June 4th, 2008 at 5:27 pmPlease ROA explain how same sex marriage is a detriment to my lifestyle ? If you believe I am going to hell, so be it, think how much more room you will have in heaven all by yourself.
June 4th, 2008 at 5:30 pmROA: Now it makes sense why people like you think they can treat people so inhumanly; because you don’t think of them as human.
You are sick.
June 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pm17. RightOfAttila Says:
The fight must continue. Now legalize bestiality!
How any logical, thinking human being can think that allowing two consensual adults to be married in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of THEIR CHURCH is remotely the same as marrying anything or anyone incapable of PHYSICALLY giving their consent (much less legally do so), is beyond me.
Two gay adults = two consenting adults.
One human adult + one animal = one consenting adult, one non-consenting party.
There is no slippery slope.
Moreover, you homophobes show your bias, your intense cognitive and observational bias, more each year. What about the CHURCHES that wish to marry their gay and lesbian parishioners? Do you care about their rights? What about atheists and agnostics, who want to get married without a single church of any sort acknowledging their marriage? Do you care about their rights? Of course not. You want to force your particular interpretation of your particular holy text on every else’s lives. You don’t give a CRAP about anyone else’s rights at all.
You should be ashamed. For shame! For shame!
June 5th, 2008 at 11:52 amTo above poster, the word homophobe is simply a pejorative. It has no clinical meaning.
Anyway, this is still a free country and people are free to openly disapprove of activity that they find patently offensive. I recall that 62% of Californians voted and passed Prop 22 which prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages. This is simply judicial activism and the voters will more than likely change the CA constitution in November and remind the silly lawyers with black robes that their job is not to make laws or usurp the will of the people.
June 5th, 2008 at 4:23 pm