California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

This morning the California state supreme court issued its decision on the same-sex marriage case, and the majority held that laws excluding gay and lesbian couples from the right to marry are unconstitutional. The decision paves the way for California to become the second state in which gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The case involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

''This is a landmark and historic day," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "We are grateful that the court upheld the most precious and cherished values of fairness, opportunity, and, most basically, the fundamental right to marry the person you love.''

California already offers domestic partnerships that offer virtually the same state-level legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution. It's unclear what impact today's decision will have on that initiative. The secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

The cases before the California court were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California, and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's month-long same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction. (AP, with additional reporting by The Advocate)

Keywords: California marriage marriage

Related stories from Advocate.com

2009-04-25: Lindsay Lohan's Fight for Marriage Equality
2009-02-20: Photos From the Ground: Lobby Day, Sacramento
2009-01-10: Prop. 8 Exit Polling of African-Americans Way Off, Experts Say
2009-01-08: Jerry Brown’s Argument to Void Prop. 8 Under Attack
2008-12-30: Constructive Impatience

Reader Comments

These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.

Name: Jonathan Lowe
Date posted: 2008-05-15 8:44 PM
Hometown: Loma Linda, CA

Comment:

I agree that this is a wonderful day in California history, but I have mixed feelings on the topic. I was born and raised in Cali, but go to school in DC at a very gay-friendly university, and have seen and come in contact with my fair share of both homo and heterosexual couples. As a legal scholar, I agree with those who say that we shouldn't be taking the marriage issue to the court system. When the courts make a decision, people have to follow it or get busted by the marshals. What we need is a push for acceptance by the community, the same community that votes in our elections and on our legislation. If we can get people to vote for us, then we will see more acceptance in the community, and that is what we need. Forcing decisions through the courts only creates ill will towards members of the gay community, and in this critical time of pushing for more social acceptance, the last thing we need is more bad feelings.

Name: Gordon Posner
Date posted: 2008-05-15 6:47 PM
Hometown: Tolleson, Arizona

Comment:

Although predictions are dangerous, I‘ll attempt one. Instead of being a great victory, this decision will prove to be valueless, at best, and at worst counterproductive. Just like the disastrous Massachusettes' decision, it will spawn further "marriage protection" amendments throughout the U.S. - setting the cause back for decades. Furthermore, as in 2004, it may help elect an arch-conservative President, beholden to the most reactionary forces in this country. What profit in gaining California and losing the entire nation? I’m especially angry because here in Arizona we face a second attempt to pass a "marriage protection" amendment. California has practically guaranteed it will succeed. So, thanks for nothing! Open your eyes! There's a difference between being an idealist, and being deaf, dumb, and blind! Make no mistake, history will prove pursuing this issue in the courts is folly, which set back the cause for a generation, if not longer.

If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.

All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.

See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.

Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.

More Exclusives

View From the Hill: The End of DADT?
Defense Secretary Robert Gates revealed that lawyers are exploring ways to ease enforcement of the military's gay ban, but cautioned that the law doesn't leave much wiggle room. He need look no further than DOD history for a lesson in altering the policy.

Hot Sheet: Week of July 5
When you get back from that big 4th of July barbecue, unwind with Sacha Baron Cohen's Bruno and your favorite B-movie-mocking, basic cable robots.

Hungry Like the Wolf
A master of viola, ukulele, piano, and harp, Patrick Wolf is a music prodigy -- one who, the night before this interview, spit on a cop and got himself arrested.

Soapside: Advocate's Guide to Daytime
Forbes March talks about playing gay, Otalia fans outraged, update on One Life to Live’s Patricia Maurceri’s firing over gay plot point, Phillip Chancellor III big reveal, and Erica Kane goes to Africa.

The Faces of Federal Prop. 8
With the federal challenge to Prop. 8 moving full speed ahead, Advocate.com sits down with the two couples named as plaintiffs in the suit.

Mommy, the Gays Are Coming
After a year of advancements and celebration for gay and lesbian Colombians, the community takes to the streets of Bogota for the country's biggest pride ever.

The Pride of Antwerp
Advocate.com hits the gay-friendly streets of Antwerp with openly gay police commissioner Serge Muyters.

Excerpt: Mean Little Deaf Queer
In an excerpt from her humorous and harrowing new memoir, Mean Little Deaf Queer, Terry Galloway recalls her early childhood, describing feelings of ugliness, confusion about gender, and being one of the boys.

Top Political Blogs
From Joe.My.God to The Daily Beast, Advocate.com spotlights a few of the best blogs that cover politics, inside and way outside the Beltway.

The Diva of French Television
A hot young screenwriter who has made gay OK for millions of French viewers, Nicolas Mercier sips champagne, dons a feathered hat, and says he wants to see Colin Farrell and Jude Law go at it.