THIS IS IT. Gay Marriage Goes B4 Cali Supreme Court Today!

[innerSpaceman]

Today, the California Supreme Court finally takes up the matter of gay marriage, and whether denying homosexuals the right to marry each other violates the California Constitution.

Woo vs. The State of California has had quite the tortured history since it was filed in state court several years ago by a lesbian couple who were denied a marriage license at the Beverly Hills courthouse. A gay couple who were denied recognition of their legal Canadian marriage joined the suit, and the suit was later joined by eight gay and lesbian couples who had their San Francisco marriages annulled by the state.

Conservative Republican Judge William Kramer ruled in favor of gay marriage back on March 14, 2005, citing the case of Perez v. Sharp, which struck down California’s anti-miscegenation laws. The ruling was reversed by the California Court of Appeal in a 2-1 decision ... and now, today, March 4, 2008, 10 days shy of 3-years since the original ruling in favor of gay marriage, the issue finally comes before the Supreme Court for the ultimate California determination of this vital civil rights issue.


The California Supreme Court is thought to lean conservatively, but the original ruling by Kramer demonstrates that conservatives can see the plain constitutional test for what it is.

Naturally, I fervently and passionately hope the Supremes do the right thing. Despite the religio-fundamentalist tilt in this country, the calendar remains at 2008. Even if gay marriage is legalized in California, it will be decades before it is made legal in the U.S., and still hundreds of years of bigotry and hatred lie before us until the spirit of the law follows the letter ... if the example of racial civil rights laws in this country provide a reasonable example.


This is a struggle for human rights and liberty as vital as any in the history of America and the World. The time has clearly come for the next positive step in this long process, with many more battles and countless heartaches and triumphs still to come.

[Snowflake]

fingers crossed, iSm.

[Chernabog]

I, for one, will be praying today that the plaintiff's attorneys win their case, and that the Supremes don't let conservative religious hogwash get in the way of doing their jobs correctly.

Of course, if Arnold Schwartzenfoofer had been doing his job correctly and legalized gay marriage instead of vetoing it (Ve hav to listen to dee vill of dee people!.... ummm ok Mr. Governor, then if you had the ability you would also have vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?) then the cases would have been moot in our favor... but we always gotta deal with the "here and now."

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Here's hoping.

[NirvanaMan]

I would far prefer that the Supreme Court declared they have no business recognizing the institution of marriage all together, regardless of ones personal choice to be hetero, homo or whatever might proceed the "-sexual" in this particular case.

But, approving gay marriage would be a close second I suppose.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, who would then get to decide who has all the rights and privileges that accrue automatically to spouses?

Would corprorations be free to decide who gets the retirement benefits of a deceased employee? Hospitals get to pick and choose who has visiting rights? The FTB and IRS get to determine who gets tax breaks? Ha! Love that last one!

There would be a mish-mash of most-likely crappy decisions of differing, prejudicial, greedy and cruel natures towards people in dire circumstances.

Much as it's far from perfect, I think it's best that these decisions be codified in LAW as opposed to left up to financial or whimsical interests.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I'd be in favor of separating the legal and the church stuff; you want to file for legal partnership, cool. You get the tax benefits and the hospital visitation and all that. Regardless of orientation. You want to do it in a church and call it marriage? Cool. Each church gets to define it how they like. Some churches will therefore honor same-sex couples.

I don't expect that's a popular opinion, but it would solve things. So legalizing same-sex marriage (or rather, the lack of banning it) would be the next best thing. Call it equality, and call it a day.

[Kevy Baby]

I strongly believe that homosexuals should be afforded the same opportunity for a miserable marriage and ugly divorce of straight couples!

[Alex]

Contracts already exist for almost all of the stuff that marriage makes implicit. In fact, marriage is just a contract that includes the federal, state, and local laws by reference.

If the state got out of the business of defining marriage an industry of standard contracts would quickly arise and the institution would be infinitely malleable to the needs, desires, and situation of the involved parties (and the next battles of group and incestuous marriage also go away).

Since the government has created a definition it has become a shorthand for private institutions but they'd quickly adjust.

The only real need for government intervention remaining is on behalf of the children and child custody and obligation laws have already been almost completely redesigned to work independently of the institution of marriage? Why, because the government definitions to match reality to a different part of the government said "screw them." It's time for all the parts and the private sector to say the same thing.


But that won't happen any time soon.

I think in the long run it is a bad idea for the battle over gay marriage to be won judicially instead of popularly but I certainly won't be upset if the CA Supreme Court settles it in the affirmative. I just think it is more likely to inflame things like Roe v. Wade did than settle them.

[alphabassettgrrl]

It's significantly more difficult to draw up each contract and there are some things not available at all under contract, only by marriage. I think those are about inheritance and some Federal benefits. I haven't looked into it for a while.

Same-sex marriage needs to be equalized. Nothing else is fair.