California courts finally get it right...
- Thread starter Nude_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
McCain is already on the record supporting it:
"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."
I remember reading her story right before she got married and I was so happy that she could finally say that she married her life partner. She is proof of how same sex marriage can be a huge success. I was shocked and saddened by her death, as she hardly had the time to enjoy her married life, even though in her mind she always was. When I saw this I thought of a family member who could have done the same and be in a similar situation, and I thought of Troop and how I hope she doesn't have to wait to marry her life partner when she finds that special someone.
Insert a smiley shedding a tear here.
green_cactus_IHB
New member
Anon. said:
McCain is already on the record supporting it:
"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."
Trooper_IHB
New member
I still can't wrap my brain around this concept: That the CSC ruled Prop 22 as discriminatory, therefore overturning it and allowing gays to marry. NOW this upcoming ballot measure will aim to try and amend the CA Constitution.....to do basically the same thing that Prop 22 did.
Won't the CSC turn around and do the same thing if the amendment passes ?? Declare it discriminatory ? I mean, what's a SC decision for if it can get back doored so easily ?? Can anyone assist with an answer ?
And stand by if this thing passes.....as Kathy Griffin says, "It's not mayhem, it's gayhem" ! There will be rioting for sure....
Won't the CSC turn around and do the same thing if the amendment passes ?? Declare it discriminatory ? I mean, what's a SC decision for if it can get back doored so easily ?? Can anyone assist with an answer ?
And stand by if this thing passes.....as Kathy Griffin says, "It's not mayhem, it's gayhem" ! There will be rioting for sure....
Nude_IHB
New member
I'm not a lawyer, but my limited understanding of civics leads me to believe that the CSC uses the State's Constitution to determine the validity of a rule, regulation, law, action, or decision made in lower courts. Therefore it would follow that if the Constitution itself was amended to make same-sex marriages illegal then the CSC would be bound by it, provided the amendment didn't violate the U.S. Constitution.Trooper said:
Trooper_IHB
New member
Well sh*t, why don't I just collect enough signatures to get a ballot measure going to outlaw (insert whatever cockamamie thing you want here).
I'm cranky. >:-(
But thanks for the explanation Nude. That makes sense.
I'm cranky. >:-(
But thanks for the explanation Nude. That makes sense.
Trooper_IHB
New member
"I’m not a lawyer, but my limited understanding of civics leads me to believe that the CSC uses the State’s Constitution to determine the validity of a rule, regulation, law, action, or decision made in lower courts. Therefore it would follow that if the Constitution itself was amended to make same-sex marriages illegal then the CSC would be bound by it, provided the amendment didn’t violate the U.S. Constitution".
I just came across this article and found one phrase in particular, very interesting....based on Nude's above comment.
Activists Celebrate Fifth Anniversary of 'Lawrence' Decision
"Thursday marked the five-year anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing consensual gay sex to be decriminalized nationwide. The 6–3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas overturned a Texas law that made it illegal to engage in same-sex sodomy. The court said upholding consensual gay sexual conduct was in line with the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection clause, since the state didn't prohibit heterosexual sodomy".
So, I imagine this whole marriage issue will eventually make it to the SCOTUS, and they will find in the same manner....since states don't prohibit heterosexual marriage.....it would be keeping in line with their Lawrence decision.
BTW, did you all even know that gay sex was illegal in thirteen states before this decision ? And that was only FIVE years ago.
I just came across this article and found one phrase in particular, very interesting....based on Nude's above comment.
Activists Celebrate Fifth Anniversary of 'Lawrence' Decision
"Thursday marked the five-year anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing consensual gay sex to be decriminalized nationwide. The 6–3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas overturned a Texas law that made it illegal to engage in same-sex sodomy. The court said upholding consensual gay sexual conduct was in line with the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection clause, since the state didn't prohibit heterosexual sodomy".
So, I imagine this whole marriage issue will eventually make it to the SCOTUS, and they will find in the same manner....since states don't prohibit heterosexual marriage.....it would be keeping in line with their Lawrence decision.
BTW, did you all even know that gay sex was illegal in thirteen states before this decision ? And that was only FIVE years ago.
lawyerliz_IHB
New member
I knew.
Every once in a while some vengeful neighbor would turn somebody in
who was guilty to my mind of only not drawing the shades.
Until recently there were some hetero sex acts also verbotten, but I forget
which ones and which states.
Now, if only someone could prohibit over building.
Every once in a while some vengeful neighbor would turn somebody in
who was guilty to my mind of only not drawing the shades.
Until recently there were some hetero sex acts also verbotten, but I forget
which ones and which states.
Now, if only someone could prohibit over building.
Trooper_IHB
New member
McCain Officially Endorses California Marriage Ban
"John McCain’s position on California’s marriage amendment has officially switched from supporting the voters’ right to define marriage as they see fit to endorsing efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage by amending the state’s constitution, according to a statement by the Log Cabin Republicans".
Surprise, surprise
"John McCain’s position on California’s marriage amendment has officially switched from supporting the voters’ right to define marriage as they see fit to endorsing efforts to prohibit same-sex marriage by amending the state’s constitution, according to a statement by the Log Cabin Republicans".
Surprise, surprise
kevin_IHB
New member
Nude is correct. The chief responsibility of the State Supreme Court is to interpret the law.
Implicit in the state constitution, as well as in the federal constitution, is the right to marry. The right to marry is a “fundamental right.” Pursuant to their respective “equal protection” constitutional clauses, the federal government and California recognize special status for certain classes – i.e. gender, race, religion and national origin. These classes are called “protected classes.”
When a law discriminates against certain people, a court will determine whether the discriminatory law is unconstitutional (note: not all discriminatory laws are unconstitutional) by looking at the law through various levels of scrutiny. A discriminatory law is not unconstitutional if it discriminates against a non-protected class and the law has a “rational basis.” Finding a rational basis for any law is very easy and discriminatory laws are rarely struck down under this level of scrutiny; basically, the law has to be completely irrational. Generally, when a law discriminates against a protected class or denies a person a fundamental right, the court analyzes the discriminatory law using “strict scrutiny.” In order for a discriminatory law to be upheld under strict scrutiny, the state must prove 1) that the state has a compelling interest and 2) the law is necessary. Very rarely do discriminatory laws survive strict scrutiny.
The reason the California ban on gay marriage was struck down is because the California Supreme Court, for the first time, elevated the status of homosexuals to a protected class and therefore applied strict scrutiny to the law. Additionally, the court applied strict scrutiny because the law restricted the fundamental right of homosexuals to marry, finding that the domestic partnership institution denied homosexuals certain fundamental rights.
If the voters of California change the constitution to explicitly state that marriage is between a man and a woman, then the court is bound to uphold the restriction. The constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not the court.
If that happens, the question will go to the SCOTUS. However, don’t get too excited. The court, when comprised of more moderate justices, has expressly refused to elevate homosexuals to a protected class. Ironically, they reaffirmed that position in Lawrence v. Texas.
The reason the law in Lawrence was struck down was because the law impinged on a homosexual’s fundamental right of PRIVACY. It is unlikely that the court will find that the denial of a right to marry violates a right to privacy. It’s true that the right to marry is a fundamental right but given that 1) historically marriage has been between a man a woman and 2) the state provides a separate system that provides most of the same privileges, the court could go either way.
And BTW, the three oldest justices are liberal. If McCain wins, you can be sure that his inevitable appointments (Stevens is 88!!!) will have a serious impact on the constitutional landscape for the next 50 years.
Implicit in the state constitution, as well as in the federal constitution, is the right to marry. The right to marry is a “fundamental right.” Pursuant to their respective “equal protection” constitutional clauses, the federal government and California recognize special status for certain classes – i.e. gender, race, religion and national origin. These classes are called “protected classes.”
When a law discriminates against certain people, a court will determine whether the discriminatory law is unconstitutional (note: not all discriminatory laws are unconstitutional) by looking at the law through various levels of scrutiny. A discriminatory law is not unconstitutional if it discriminates against a non-protected class and the law has a “rational basis.” Finding a rational basis for any law is very easy and discriminatory laws are rarely struck down under this level of scrutiny; basically, the law has to be completely irrational. Generally, when a law discriminates against a protected class or denies a person a fundamental right, the court analyzes the discriminatory law using “strict scrutiny.” In order for a discriminatory law to be upheld under strict scrutiny, the state must prove 1) that the state has a compelling interest and 2) the law is necessary. Very rarely do discriminatory laws survive strict scrutiny.
The reason the California ban on gay marriage was struck down is because the California Supreme Court, for the first time, elevated the status of homosexuals to a protected class and therefore applied strict scrutiny to the law. Additionally, the court applied strict scrutiny because the law restricted the fundamental right of homosexuals to marry, finding that the domestic partnership institution denied homosexuals certain fundamental rights.
If the voters of California change the constitution to explicitly state that marriage is between a man and a woman, then the court is bound to uphold the restriction. The constitution is the ultimate law of the land, not the court.
If that happens, the question will go to the SCOTUS. However, don’t get too excited. The court, when comprised of more moderate justices, has expressly refused to elevate homosexuals to a protected class. Ironically, they reaffirmed that position in Lawrence v. Texas.
The reason the law in Lawrence was struck down was because the law impinged on a homosexual’s fundamental right of PRIVACY. It is unlikely that the court will find that the denial of a right to marry violates a right to privacy. It’s true that the right to marry is a fundamental right but given that 1) historically marriage has been between a man a woman and 2) the state provides a separate system that provides most of the same privileges, the court could go either way.
And BTW, the three oldest justices are liberal. If McCain wins, you can be sure that his inevitable appointments (Stevens is 88!!!) will have a serious impact on the constitutional landscape for the next 50 years.
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
Trooper_IHB
New member
The Human Rights Campaign has been working on the reversal of this law for years. Nice to see that it is on it's way to being removed from the books. It will certainly be signed by the Mass. Gov. as his daughter recently came out as a lesbian.
Trooper_IHB
New member
I'm just going to pretend I didn't hear Chief Bratton and his "gone gay" comment.....(not).....working on a meeting to, um, clarify. He's a big supporter too, it was really out of character for him.
Anyways, just thought I'd cut and paste and email I just got. Nice to see the support that is forming around the marriage issue.
My new mantra: No on 8.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2008
CONTACT: Ali Bay, Communications Manager
PHONE: (916) 284-9187 EMAIL: ali@eqca.org
EQCA Raises a Record $2 million at Los Angeles Equality Awards
SEIU California, California Teacher’s Association, AT&TMake Significant Contributions to NO on 8 Campaign at EQCA’s Aug. 2 Event
LOS ANGELES – Equality California raised about $2 million on Saturday at the Los Angeles Equality Awards, bringing in the most contributions for a single fundraising event in EQCA’s 10-year history. Many of the donations were made to NO on 8 – Equality California, EQCA’s fundraising PAC that is raising funds to fight Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that would deny same-gender couples the fundamental freedom to marry.
Both labor organizations and businesses made significant contributions to NO on 8 – Equality California on Saturday. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU-California) made a contribution of $500,000, presented by United Healthcare Workers-West President Sal Rosselli. David Sanchez, president of the California Teacher’s Association announced a contribution $250,000 on behalf of CTA. Ken McNeely, president of AT&TCalifornia, presented a donation of $25,000 from the telecommunications corporation. EQCA supporters at the event also pledged an additional combined $350,000. All of those contributions will help fund the NO on 8 campaign.
During the evening event at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors also announced that EQCA was transferring $500,000 to the NO on 8 campaign, not including the contributions made on Aug. 2. In all, EQCA’s NO on 8 fundraising PAC has raised more than $3 million to fight the initiative.
“We are thrilled with the generous outpouring of support we’ve received to fight Proposition 8 and applaud our labor partners and business allies for stepping up to say it’s not OK to treat any Californians differently under the laws of our state,” said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. “It is an honor to have the leadership of SEIU California, the California Teacher’s Association and AT&Tbehind us as we work to defeat this divisive initiative that would deny same-gender couples the respect and dignity of marriage,” Kors said. “Thanks to this support, the Los Angeles event was by far the largest and most successful fundraiser EQCA has hosted in its history – and it may be one of the most successful fundraising events for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the history of our state.”
The Los Angeles Equality Awards was presented by AT&Tand received significant backing from Wells Fargo, which purchased a record eight tables at the event. Celebrating its 10th Anniversary, EQCA honored two longtime allies at the awards event, National Center for Lesbian Rights and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. EQCA recognized NCLR and Mayor Newsom for their leadership in helping secure the freedom to marry for same-gender couples in California. The event, which drew a sold-out crowd of nearly 1,000 guests from across the state, was hosted by Grammy-nominated comedienne Margaret Cho. Her work has been highly regarded for promoting the equal rights of all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Lead sponsors for this year's event included AT&T, Gary D. Soto, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Wells Fargo, Stolichnaya Vodka, Adam Press, Irell & Mandella LLP, Eric Webber & Gerard Kraaijeveveld, Skip Paul & Van Fletcher, United Healthcare Workers West, Time Warner Cable.
Founded in 1998, Equality California celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2008, commemorating a decade of building a state of equality in California. EQCA is a nonprofit, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians. www.eqca.org
(embedded video no longer available)
Anyways, just thought I'd cut and paste and email I just got. Nice to see the support that is forming around the marriage issue.
My new mantra: No on 8.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2008
CONTACT: Ali Bay, Communications Manager
PHONE: (916) 284-9187 EMAIL: ali@eqca.org
EQCA Raises a Record $2 million at Los Angeles Equality Awards
SEIU California, California Teacher’s Association, AT&TMake Significant Contributions to NO on 8 Campaign at EQCA’s Aug. 2 Event
LOS ANGELES – Equality California raised about $2 million on Saturday at the Los Angeles Equality Awards, bringing in the most contributions for a single fundraising event in EQCA’s 10-year history. Many of the donations were made to NO on 8 – Equality California, EQCA’s fundraising PAC that is raising funds to fight Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that would deny same-gender couples the fundamental freedom to marry.
Both labor organizations and businesses made significant contributions to NO on 8 – Equality California on Saturday. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU-California) made a contribution of $500,000, presented by United Healthcare Workers-West President Sal Rosselli. David Sanchez, president of the California Teacher’s Association announced a contribution $250,000 on behalf of CTA. Ken McNeely, president of AT&TCalifornia, presented a donation of $25,000 from the telecommunications corporation. EQCA supporters at the event also pledged an additional combined $350,000. All of those contributions will help fund the NO on 8 campaign.
During the evening event at the Beverly Hilton in Beverly Hills, EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors also announced that EQCA was transferring $500,000 to the NO on 8 campaign, not including the contributions made on Aug. 2. In all, EQCA’s NO on 8 fundraising PAC has raised more than $3 million to fight the initiative.
“We are thrilled with the generous outpouring of support we’ve received to fight Proposition 8 and applaud our labor partners and business allies for stepping up to say it’s not OK to treat any Californians differently under the laws of our state,” said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. “It is an honor to have the leadership of SEIU California, the California Teacher’s Association and AT&Tbehind us as we work to defeat this divisive initiative that would deny same-gender couples the respect and dignity of marriage,” Kors said. “Thanks to this support, the Los Angeles event was by far the largest and most successful fundraiser EQCA has hosted in its history – and it may be one of the most successful fundraising events for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community in the history of our state.”
The Los Angeles Equality Awards was presented by AT&Tand received significant backing from Wells Fargo, which purchased a record eight tables at the event. Celebrating its 10th Anniversary, EQCA honored two longtime allies at the awards event, National Center for Lesbian Rights and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. EQCA recognized NCLR and Mayor Newsom for their leadership in helping secure the freedom to marry for same-gender couples in California. The event, which drew a sold-out crowd of nearly 1,000 guests from across the state, was hosted by Grammy-nominated comedienne Margaret Cho. Her work has been highly regarded for promoting the equal rights of all people, regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender identity.
Lead sponsors for this year's event included AT&T, Gary D. Soto, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Wells Fargo, Stolichnaya Vodka, Adam Press, Irell & Mandella LLP, Eric Webber & Gerard Kraaijeveveld, Skip Paul & Van Fletcher, United Healthcare Workers West, Time Warner Cable.
Founded in 1998, Equality California celebrates its 10th anniversary in 2008, commemorating a decade of building a state of equality in California. EQCA is a nonprofit, statewide advocacy organization whose mission is to achieve equality and civil rights of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians. www.eqca.org
(embedded video no longer available)
Trooper_IHB
New member
Yes, I'm keeping this thread alive......November is only 3 months away.
This is a new commercial being aired by Equality California
Think about it.
(embedded video no longer available)
This is a new commercial being aired by Equality California
Think about it.
(embedded video no longer available)
Trooper_IHB
New member
One half of first gay couple to marry, passes away
It is with great sadness that I share with you that today, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community lost an iconic leader and a beloved friend.
Del Martin, 87, passed away in San Francisco today. Martin was one of the nation’s first and most visible lesbian rights activists who dedicated her life to combating homophobia, sexism, violence and racism. Martin’s many contributions to the LGBT movement will resonate for decades to come.
We are saddened to lose such a wonderful friend to our community and our love goes out to her partner, Phyllis Lyon, and her family during this most difficult time. We would not be at this incredible moment in history, where all couples have equal rights under California law, if it had not been for Del’s lifetime of courage and leadership.
Del Martin and Phillis Lyon were married in California on June 16, 2008 after 55 years together.
It is with great sadness that I share with you that today, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community lost an iconic leader and a beloved friend.
Del Martin, 87, passed away in San Francisco today. Martin was one of the nation’s first and most visible lesbian rights activists who dedicated her life to combating homophobia, sexism, violence and racism. Martin’s many contributions to the LGBT movement will resonate for decades to come.
We are saddened to lose such a wonderful friend to our community and our love goes out to her partner, Phyllis Lyon, and her family during this most difficult time. We would not be at this incredible moment in history, where all couples have equal rights under California law, if it had not been for Del’s lifetime of courage and leadership.
Del Martin and Phillis Lyon were married in California on June 16, 2008 after 55 years together.
HB Bear Too_IHB
New member
Trooper said:
graphrix_IHB
New member
Trooper said:One half of first gay couple to marry, passes away
It is with great sadness that I share with you that today, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community lost an iconic leader and a beloved friend.
Del Martin, 87, passed away in San Francisco today. Martin was one of the nation’s first and most visible lesbian rights activists who dedicated her life to combating homophobia, sexism, violence and racism. Martin’s many contributions to the LGBT movement will resonate for decades to come.
We are saddened to lose such a wonderful friend to our community and our love goes out to her partner, Phyllis Lyon, and her family during this most difficult time. We would not be at this incredible moment in history, where all couples have equal rights under California law, if it had not been for Del’s lifetime of courage and leadership.
Del Martin and Phillis Lyon were married in California on June 16, 2008 after 55 years together.
I remember reading her story right before she got married and I was so happy that she could finally say that she married her life partner. She is proof of how same sex marriage can be a huge success. I was shocked and saddened by her death, as she hardly had the time to enjoy her married life, even though in her mind she always was. When I saw this I thought of a family member who could have done the same and be in a similar situation, and I thought of Troop and how I hope she doesn't have to wait to marry her life partner when she finds that special someone.
Insert a smiley shedding a tear here.
EvaLSeraphim_IHB
New member
After a 21 year relationship, I think it's high time one gets married.
All the best to the happy couple.
All the best to the happy couple.
Trooper_IHB
New member
Yes, Sulu came out of the closet not too long ago. He and his partner have been a wonderful addition to helping people understand "us". I mean.....everyone knows Sulu !
Thanks for posting eva.
Thanks for posting eva.
NoWowway_IHB
New member
Trooper,
I think that commercial is very effective. It made me frustrated and angry that the couple was thwarted time and again. I don't think it could be too much of a leap to think that other people could emphathize and be able to apply the reasoning to same sex couples who love each other and want to solidify their commitment.
I think that commercial is very effective. It made me frustrated and angry that the couple was thwarted time and again. I don't think it could be too much of a leap to think that other people could emphathize and be able to apply the reasoning to same sex couples who love each other and want to solidify their commitment.