The wingnuts will be in quite a tizzy tonight. While, this will undoubtedly be sent to the California Supreme Court on appeal, this is a huge developement in the U.S.'s cultural war.
Update: Top ten reasons to ban gay marraige H/T DA
Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
"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 denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.
Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.
The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.
(Full Story)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Tempest in a teapot.
I have a question- can Churches be sued for what are perceived to be civil rights violations? Does that apply to church doctrine?
I'm not sure, but I seem to recall a church being sued for not hiring an employee of another faith, etc.
no, churches are exempt from hiring persons of other faiths. But, this law has not always been in effect, so if there was a case, it was probably sometime in the 70's or 80's.
This is one of the augments against the "faith based initiatives." A church can pretty much legally discriminate. So, unless you convert, you can't ever get a job with that charitable organization.
Dingo, isn't there a another case that is already pending before the CA Supreme Court on this issue? I thought there was one stemming from Newsom's decision already. Obviously the CA SC is going to have to decide this.
I'm pretty sure there was some sort of case in CA in which it was ruled that a religious hospital had to offer insurance benefits to same-sex partners. I'll have to look. CA already has laws offering some benefits to domestic partners.
Good comments, boomr. You hit the same three points I was going to make: 1) judges should not answer to the mob, as that is one of the corners of the check-and-balance triangle (even though the Bushies would like to just eliminate that pesky restriction; 2) no church is required to perform a ceremony which it does not recognize; and 3) SINCE IT DOESN'T EVEN AFFECT ANYONE ELSE, WHY DO THE OPPONENTS EVEN CARE? Man, just live and let live, eh?
Oh, for a truly free society...
Post a Comment