[Sosfbay-discuss] California's top court legalizes gay marriage

[Drew Johnson]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage;_ylt=AnTae27yXxoHk5cR_EBDXsGs0NUE
 California's top court legalizes gay marriage

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the
nation's biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived
victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears,
hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the
window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are
pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that
would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have
equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff
in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get
married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and
people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside
the courthouse. In the Castro, the historic center of the gay community in
San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment,"
he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at
San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In
West Hollywood, supporters were planning to serve "wedding cake" at an
evening celebration.

James Dobson, chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the
Family, called the ruling an "outrage."

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional
marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they
protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said
in an e-mail statement.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state
laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide
many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an
individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed
relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise
children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief
Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that
delighted gay rights activists.

Massachusetts is the only other state to legalize gay marriage, something
it did in 2004. The California ruling is considered monumental by virtue
of the state's size — 38 million out of a U.S. population of 302 million —
and its historic role in the vanguard of the many social and cultural
changes that have swept the country since World War II.

California has an estimated 92,000 same-sex couples.

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in
California," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the
air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "As California goes, so goes the
rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going
to happen, whether you like it or not."

Unlike Massachusetts, California has no residency requirement for
obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays from around the country are
likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, a gay-rights
attorney who worked on the case.

The ultimate reach of the ruling could be limited, however, since most
states do not recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere. Nor does the
federal government.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund said it would ask the justices for
a stay of the decision until after the fall election in hopes of adding
California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional
amendments banning same-sex marriage.

"We're obviously very disappointed in the decision. The remedy is a
constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union
between one man and one woman," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the
organization.

Randy Thomasson of VoteYesMarriage.com, a campaign to amend the California
Constitution to ban gay marriage, said the decision was in effect telling
children that they have a "new role model — homosexual marriage, aspire to
it.

"This is a disaster," he said.

Opponents of gay marriage could also ask the high court to reconsider. If
the court rejects such a request, same-sex couples could start getting
married in 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices' opinions
to become final.

The justices said they would direct state officials "to take all actions
necessary to effectuate our ruling," including requiring county marriage
clerks to carry out their duties "in a manner consistent with" the court's
decision.

James Vaughn, director of the California Log Cabin Republicans, called the
ruling a "conservative one."

"The justices have ensured that the law treats all Californians fairly and
equally. This decision is a good one for all families, gay and non-gay,"
Vaughn said.

The case was set in motion in 2004 when the mayor of San Francisco — the
unofficial capital of gay America — threw City Hall open to gay couples to
get married in a calculated challenge to California law. Four-thousand gay
couples wed before the Supreme Court put a halt to the practice after a
month.

Two dozen gay couples then sued, along with the city and gay rights
organizations.

Thursday's ruling could alter the dynamics of the presidential race and
state and congressional contests in California and beyond by causing a
backlash among conservatives and drawing them to the polls in large
numbers.

A spokesman for Republican John McCain, who opposes gay marriage, said the
Arizona senator "doesn't believe judges should be making these decisions."
The campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said they believe
that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

Ten states now offer some form of legal recognition to same-sex couples —
in most cases, domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the past few
years, the courts in New York, New Jersey and Washington state have
refused to allow gay marriage.

Outside the San Francisco courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and
cheered as news spread of the decision. Jeanie Rizzo, one of the
plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone
and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said same-sex
marriage advocates could not have hoped for a more favorable ruling by the
Republican-dominated court. "It's a total victory," Minter said.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic
partners many of the legal rights and responsibilities afforded to married
couples, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

Citing a 1948 California Supreme Court decision that overturned a ban on
interracial marriages, the justices struck down the state's 1977 one-man,
one-woman marriage law, as well as a similar, voter-approved law that
passed with 61 percent in 2000.

The chief justice was joined by Justices Joyce Kennard and Kathryn
Werdegar, all three of whom were appointed by Republican governors, and
Justice Carlos Moreno, the only member of the court appointed by a
Democrat.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the
majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that
changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters. Justices Ming
Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June
whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage
amendment on the ballot.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation
that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement
that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment
to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

___

Associated Press writers Terence Chea, Jason Dearen, Juliana Barbassa and
Evelyn Nieves in San Francisco and Liz Sidoti in Washington contributed to
this report.