-
May 16, 2008 12:09 am US/Pacific
-
Digg |
Facebook |
E-mail
|
Print
California Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5 / AP / BCN) ―
California's Supreme Court declared Thursday that gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one on-the-spot proposal.
"Retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetrating a more general premise -- now emphatically rejected by this state -- that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respect 'second-class citizens," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in a 4-3 ruling.
The decision by the court means 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 state Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.
A
CBS 5 Poll conducted by Survey USA after Thursday's ruling was handed down found Californians evenly divided. While 46% supported the court decision, another 46% disagreed with it.
"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."
In the Castro, the historic center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV on CBS 5. "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 its 121-page opinion, 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, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights," the chief justice wrote in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.
The majority opinion concluded, "In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right."
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, told a roaring crowd at City Hall while pumping his fist in the air. "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."
Opponents of gay marriage said they were disappointed in the ruling, and vowed to move forward with efforts to change the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
"What an outrage," said James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family. "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."
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 court's decision clearly demonstrates that marriage is not ultimately safe from tampering by activists and others in government until the voters have amended the constitution," said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the organization. "The remedy is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman."
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 decision of this court."
Gareth Lacy, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown, whose office argued to uphold the ban, said Brown will "work with the governor and other state agencies to implement the ruling."
The case was set in motion in 2004 when 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 state 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.
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody—not just in the state of California, but throughout the country—will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
The first couple invited to exchange vows in 2004 were two women who had been partners in life, love and lesbian politics for more than half a century. So after Thursday's ruling, Newsom asked Phyllis Lyon, 84, and Del Martin, 87, the godmothers of the gay rights movement, if they wanted to go first again.
"I said, 'Sure,"' said Lyon, who heard of the landmark decision on the radio and rushed across the house to embrace her partner of 55 years. "We didn't jump, but we were really happy. This is a big step forward."
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 utilized by the state Supreme Court,
gay marriage supporters and lawsuit plaintiffs cried and cheered as news spread of the decision. The gay-rights organization Equality California called it an "historical decision" by the court.
"We are thrilled by today's decision. We've been a loving, committed couple for over 21 years, and we are overjoyed that we will finally be able to marry," said Stuart Gaffney, who along with partner John Lewis, were among the plaintiffs.
Jeanie Rizzo, another one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, via cell phone and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"
"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."
Shannon Minter, who argued the case on behalf 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.
"There is no more important and deeply personal decision than whether to take on the commitment of marriage. With today's ruling, the California Supreme Court declared that lesbians and gay men have an equal right to make that cherished commitment," she added.
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.
Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote, saying that the majority decision "violates the separation of powers and thereby commits profound error."
Baxter further wrote that "if such a profound change in the ancient social institution is to occur," it should be carried out by the people of California in a democratic process, either through the Legislature or through an initiative vote.
Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.
Corrigan wrote a separate dissent in which she said that while she personally believed that "Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages," same-sex couples have nearly equivalent rights in domestic partnerships.
Corrigan further wrote, "If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and finds its expression at the ballot box."
Michael Zamperini, a constitutional law professor at Golden Gate University School of Law in San Francisco, said, "I think the decision will have an impact nationally."
Zamperini said courts sometimes "catch up after society has changed. The court system has realized that society treats gay and lesbian people differently now from the way it treated them even five or 10 years ago."
"The court is saying that something that is not the same is inherently unequal," Zamperini said.
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 as governor, I will uphold its ruling."
Schwarzenegger also said he "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
Lyon, who along with Martin and six other women co-founded the nation's first lesbian rights organization in 1955, said that while she never expected to be able to get married in her lifetime, she was looking forward to seeing how the political drama plays out.
"At this point, we are sticking around 'til November, come hell or high water," she said.
(© CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. The Associated Press and Bay City News contributed to this report.)