15 May 2008

We Could Be Getting Married in the Morning

A month from now, that is, in California. A few key excerpts from the majority opinion:

"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."

Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry "will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage."

Bilerico has some good posts on the subject (including one warning about the socio-political-legal backlash that will likely follow. So once you're done doing the happy dance, get your activist shoes out and get ready to politic, ok?).

14 comments:

kathy a. said...

This is great news! For those who don't know, the California Supreme Court is a pretty conservative institution the past 20 years or so. See, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/15/BA3G10N325.DTL&tsp=1

Here is the opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

The decision doesn't become final for 30 days. And it is based on the state constitution, not the US constitution. But a huge victory, nonetheless.

kathy a. said...

PS -- there is already a ballot initiative to change the California Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. DO NOT SIGN random ballot initiatives. DO NOT VOTE for an initiative unless you have carefully researched it.

Ballot initiatives are allowed [at least in my state] to let the little people have a say if the legislature isn't acting. BUT THIS HAS BECOME BIG BUSINESS, something to be bought by wealthy interests who try to capture voters with a quick spiel outside the supermarket.

Songbird said...

I was so glad to hear this!

rachel said...

Welcome to the club, although you realize this is diminishing any leverage I had to persuade my mom and sister to move to Canada!

(Er, that makes it sound like my mom and my sister want to marry each other, doesn't it. My family has its Jerry Springer aspects, but lesbian incest isn't one of them, yet.)

S. said...

Dude. I totally need to pay more attention to the news.

partsnpieces said...

This is wonderful news!!! (For you and for so many others.)

Arwen said...

I live in Vancouver's equivalent of San Fran's Castro district, so I can speak to not a heck of a lot, but in Canada I haven't seen much of a backlash.

Of course, it was federal soon after the provinces began recognizing gay marriages. For the 2 years between, Alberta was soiling its shorts and there was a lot of discussion on the radio.

What was kind of silly was that the federal act detailing same-sex marriage as being the same as opposite-sex marriage forgot about the divorce bit. The first few divorces had to go through court.

Arwen said...

Duh. I mean, divorces have to go through the legal system regardless, but the first few divorcees needed to fight for the right to GET divorced.

susan said...

Arwen, Canada settled the marriage question federally very quickly. In the US, the backlash is likely to arise from the fact that California permits non-residents to get married (so lawsuits are likely to arise in other states about the recognition of California marriages by other states, and even fear of such lawsuits is likely to promote, in some quarters, support for anti-marriage amendments in states that don't currently have such amendments and b) the ballot initiative in California this fall to amend the consitution to prevent same-sex marriage will now get legs, and this is going to have some interesting effects on the presidential campaign in California, too.

What has helped in Vermont and Massachusetss is the realization that the sky didn't fall in after civil unions and marriage--legistlators who supported those moves didn't lose their seats, life went on normally, everything was fine. But I don't think that the exciteable forces promoting bans on same-sex marriage are going to want to wait and see whether California falls into the ocean b/c of this ruling before springing into action. In the long run, today's ruling is excellent. In the short run, I bet there will be pluses and minuses.

So Rachel, still plenty of reasons for your non-incestuous relatives to join you in Canada!

bookbk said...

Not apropos of anything, I just tagged you for a meme over at Librarian Mom, if the house-wrangling permits...

MrsJennaHatfield said...

:) I'm going to have to buy stock in congratulations on your wedding cards, I do think. ;)

Magpie said...

It's a good thing. Let it spread.

Mamacita said...

I'm so happy. Let it spread, indeed!

trillwing said...

I was thrilled when I saw the news. But since Prop 22 (the initiative banning same-sex marriage) passed a few years back, I'm worried that the new proposed ballot initiative will pass, this time amending the state's constitution. Ugh.

It always surprises me to find out how socially conservative this state can be, despite its popular reputation as a bastion of crazy liberals.