elcid89: blog 
elcid89's blog
and so it goes
Published May. 15, 2008
The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."
"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, 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," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.
The ruling takes affect in 30 days.
I admit to having been taken off guard by this. Given the makeup of the court, it wasn't what I'd been expecting. Go figure ...
It's a long ruling, but if you're the interested sort, you can read the full text of the ruling HERE
close39 Comments
(19 votes) granville mom disappears, house catches fire
(6 votes) suspect in fatal hit-and-run surrenders
(5 votes) hanna makes landfall
(4 votes) cary investigating woman's death
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
The essence of the ruling is that the laws prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional, and therefore there is no basis in law for denying them access to marriage. So yes, in 30 days, barring a stay, gays will be able to marry in California.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
May 16, 2008 9:30 p.m.
GOLO member since April 10, 2008
May 16, 2008 3:33 a.m.
GOLO member since March 13, 2008
May 15, 2008 8:54 p.m.
They could try to take it up the food chain, or push for a constitutional amendment. I hope they do one or the other. My take is, because traditionally marriage has been between a man and a woman, it should remain as such. However, I also think they should have provided a means of same sex couples to be recognized by the state, and receive both the good and bad legal benefits as married men and women do. Generally the term I have heard used is a Civil Union. Perhaps that is splitting hairs, but I think getting more states to go along with that would be far easier and would be more broadly accepted.
GOLO member since October 18, 2007
May 15, 2008 8:34 p.m.
May 15, 2008 8:32 p.m.
May 15, 2008 8:22 p.m.
And as so far as it relates to a church sanctifying the union, it's perfectly ok for it to remain that way forever.
Where the state gets involved in it, however, it isn't ok any longer.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
May 15, 2008 8:12 p.m.
Now you can vote for McCain ; )"
It wasn't what I'd been expecting because the majority of the justices on that court were appointed by Republicans. I expected them to find some way to prevent it.
No way. I can't give him my vote, sorry.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
May 15, 2008 8:10 p.m.
May 15, 2008 8:08 p.m.
GOLO member since July 10, 2007
May 15, 2008 7:57 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.