Judge finds CAs marriage law unconstitutional

[BarTopDancer]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/03/14/state/n121337S24.DTL

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the unconstitutional denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians and their right to marry.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Kramer's decision came in a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn California's statutory ban on gay marriage. They were brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March, after the California Supreme Court halted the four-week marriage spree Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California, that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

[innerSpaceman]

:snap:

[Motorboat Cruiser]

It is good news indeed but it will all be nullified if California eventually passes a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Hopefully, the people of this state are a bit more open-minded than some of the others but for some reason, I doubt it.

There is still lots of fear out there concerning two people loving each other, as if it will destroy all of society.

[BarTopDancer]

It is good news indeed but it will all be nullified if California eventually passes a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Hopefully, the people of this state are a bit more open-minded than some of the others but for some reason, I doubt it.

I fear you are correct considering a law banning same sex marriages passed within the last 7 years (I forget when).

There is still lots of fear out there concerning two people loving each other, as if it will destroy all of society.

Yup. Cause you know that once you allow gay people to marry then you have to allow people to marry their pets and their daughters/sons and farm animals! :rolleyes:

It's too bad that the same people spending so much time and energy on banning gay marriage can't expel that same amount of energy on fixing our crumbling schools and helping our starving and homeless citizens.

[Jazzman]

I have to often laugh because it's usually the same people crying that their rights are being limited, because the ten commandments are being removed from public land, that scream the loudest to limit marriage to straight couples. "Take away their rights, but leave ours the hell alone!" Hypocrisy at its finest. :rolleyes:

[Gemini Cricket]

:)

[alphabassettgrrl]

Yep. Headlines on both my city's newspaper and the LA Times. Yee-hawww! :)

[Chernabog]

This is great news (and of course the backlash has already started). I have faith that we will eventually have the right to marry our partners without state intervention, but even in my wildest dreams I never imagined stuff like this to happen so soon.

It'll be great when Jewish mothers start nagging their gay sons and daughters : So, why aren't ya married yet??? ;)

[Gemini Cricket]

We're the Freedom Country. We should have had this federally recognized right a long time ago.
:)

[Chernabog]

We're the Freedom Country. We should have had this federally recognized right a long time ago.
:)

LMAO... and which Canadian province did we wake up in this morning, Gemini? :D

An interesting little tidbit that I read in the Daily Journal (Lawyer's Newspaper in California) told how people who got married in Massachusetts have to fill out FOUR tax returns, twice the usual number: 1) Massachusetts joint filing 2 & 3) Federal individual filings and 4) Federal joint filing, since Massachusetts taxes are based on the federal filing. Usually married couples just have to fill out two, just like the rest of us single folk.

As far as federal recognition is concerned, Clinton signed the federal DOMA. It certainly won't be overturned by Georgie the Wonder Chimp.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

We're the Freedom Country. Most country's citizens are taught that they live in Freedom Country. The commies define freedom as freedom from the tyranny of corporations. Our Freedom Country has lost a lot of it's freedom lately.

[Gemini Cricket]

LMAO... and which Canadian province did we wake up in this morning, Gemini? :D
Exactly. Other countries are reminding us about how backwards we really are sometimes. In the UK, they're creating laws to let gay people serve in the military and share housing with their partners. Here we're telling gay soliders they should move to the back of the bus and out the exit. Sad.
Most country's citizens are taught that they live in Freedom Country. The commies define freedom as freedom from the tyranny of corporations. Our Freedom Country has lost a lot of it's freedom lately.
I agree. But I still think it's sad. We lost our identity. It's sad.

[innerSpaceman]

I just love some of the common sense statements contained within Judge Kramer's ruling:

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this State to opposite-sex partners."

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such consitutional violation has become traditional."

"... a statute lacking a reasonable connection to a legitimate state interest cannot acquire such a connection simply by surviving unchallenged over time."

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."

"The idea that California's marriage law does not discriminate upon gender is incorrect."

"To say that all men and women are treated the same in that each may not marry someone of the same gender misses the point."

"The marriage laws establish classifications (same gender vs. opposite gender) and discriminate based on those gender-based qualifications."

"The argument that the marriage limitations are not discriminatory because they are gender neutral is similar to arguments in cases dealing with anti-miscegenation laws."

"... the parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose whom one wants to marry."

"... this court has determined that the State's two rationales (tradition and tradition plus marriage rights without marriage) do not constitute a legitimate governmental interest for the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples."

"Under our present opposite-sex only law, marriage is available to heterosexual couples regardless of whether they can or want to procreate. As long as they choose an opposite-sex mate, persons beyond child-bearing age, infertile persons, and those who choose not to have children may marry in California. Persons in each category are allowed to marry even though they do not satisfy any perceived legitimate compelling government interest in procreation."

"... the denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary."



Judge Kramer is a straight Republican, appointed by Pete Wilson.

[SacTown Chronic]

So not only is Judge Kramer the antithesis of a so-called "activist judge", but, as this article points out (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/16/opinion/16rubinstein.html?ex=1268629200&en=e16e5dc5a7fde3be&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland), he also didn't follow the activist judge route.


"It's easy to dismiss Monday's decision as that of an ultraliberal San Francisco judge. But if there's news here, it's that San Francisco's courts are following other courts on a gay rights issue, not leading them.

Even within California, Judge Richard A. Kramer of San Francisco County Superior Court, who issued the opinion, is following the political branches of state and local government, not leading them. He's no judicial activist. San Francisco's city council enacted ordinances recognizing same-sex couples decades ago, and its mayor famously wed same-sex couples a year ago. In the past few years, the California Legislature has enacted laws granting same-sex couples almost all of the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.

Conservatives denounce judges who get ahead of legislatures, alleging that they are trying to change the world with a stroke of the pen, but that's not the situation in San Francisco. Same-sex couples' rights came from its legislature first, its mayor second and the judiciary last."