Daily Herald - California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

Thursday, 15 May 2008

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

Lisa Leff - THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SAN FRANCISCO -- In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"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," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"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.

Article views: 308

Discuss (36 posts)

The Keeper

May 16 2008 17:58:44

ThomasK wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
I used to agree with what you were saying but when put to the task of backing up why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman I couldn't come up with a single real reason for limitation.

You LDS?

Also, regardless of what a religion's stance is on the issue, that is neither here nor there. No one should force their religious views over others. I was appalled when the LDS spoke out on the issue...so much for separation of religion and politics.

EDIT: I'm referring to the LDS releasing a statement that they approved of legally defining marriage or something to that effect. I'll have to go looking for it now, I don't remember the wording.

I'm LDS. I pretty much agree with him. The Church has every right to make the statement they have concerning marriage and the law. Personally I don't agree with it. If it is legalized that doesn't mean that they have to accept it. And I would be against any law that would say that they have to.

501(c)(3) alert!

#367881

Wren

May 16 2008 21:55:55

Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
I used to agree with what you were saying but when put to the task of backing up why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman I couldn't come up with a single real reason for limitation.

You LDS?

Also, regardless of what a religion's stance is on the issue, that is neither here nor there. No one should force their religious views over others. I was appalled when the LDS spoke out on the issue...so much for separation of religion and politics.

EDIT: I'm referring to the LDS releasing a statement that they approved of legally defining marriage or something to that effect. I'll have to go looking for it now, I don't remember the wording.

I'm LDS. I pretty much agree with him. The Church has every right to make the statement they have concerning marriage and the law. Personally I don't agree with it. If it is legalized that doesn't mean that they have to accept it. And I would be against any law that would say that they have to.

I don't care if the LDS church is against gay marriage and I don't care if they go on the record stating such - as a religious point. What I care about is when they move to urge the members of the church to pass legislation that will infringe upon the rights of others. I find that wrong.

Again, you have to understand that we feel God feels so strongly that this is a serious decline in morals that it will have a serious affect on the United states of America. If you are Ex LDS you should know what I mean from the BofM.

And we are not forcing our beliefs on anyone, we are merely asking our members to remember to do something they should know to do anyway, that is uphold Gods laws.

Do you oppose civil unions for couples, regardless of their sex?

#367977

dave

May 17 2008 00:11:58

How will gay marriage affect anything?? I fail to see any tangable effect. Maybe the divorce attorneys will have more business????

#368071

Dubbs

May 17 2008 00:15:03

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
I used to agree with what you were saying but when put to the task of backing up why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman I couldn't come up with a single real reason for limitation.

You LDS?

Also, regardless of what a religion's stance is on the issue, that is neither here nor there. No one should force their religious views over others. I was appalled when the LDS spoke out on the issue...so much for separation of religion and politics.

EDIT: I'm referring to the LDS releasing a statement that they approved of legally defining marriage or something to that effect. I'll have to go looking for it now, I don't remember the wording.

I'm LDS. I pretty much agree with him. The Church has every right to make the statement they have concerning marriage and the law. Personally I don't agree with it. If it is legalized that doesn't mean that they have to accept it. And I would be against any law that would say that they have to.

I don't care if the LDS church is against gay marriage and I don't care if they go on the record stating such - as a religious point. What I care about is when they move to urge the members of the church to pass legislation that will infringe upon the rights of others. I find that wrong.

Again, you have to understand that we feel God feels so strongly that this is a serious decline in morals that it will have a serious affect on the United states of America. If you are Ex LDS you should know what I mean from the BofM.

And we are not forcing our beliefs on anyone, we are merely asking our members to remember to do something they should know to do anyway, that is uphold Gods laws.

Do you oppose civil unions for couples, regardless of their sex?

That would be fine with me.

#368073

Wren

May 17 2008 03:22:18

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
JLD wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
I used to agree with what you were saying but when put to the task of backing up why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman I couldn't come up with a single real reason for limitation.

You LDS?

Also, regardless of what a religion's stance is on the issue, that is neither here nor there. No one should force their religious views over others. I was appalled when the LDS spoke out on the issue...so much for separation of religion and politics.

EDIT: I'm referring to the LDS releasing a statement that they approved of legally defining marriage or something to that effect. I'll have to go looking for it now, I don't remember the wording.

I'm LDS. I pretty much agree with him. The Church has every right to make the statement they have concerning marriage and the law. Personally I don't agree with it. If it is legalized that doesn't mean that they have to accept it. And I would be against any law that would say that they have to.

I don't care if the LDS church is against gay marriage and I don't care if they go on the record stating such - as a religious point. What I care about is when they move to urge the members of the church to pass legislation that will infringe upon the rights of others. I find that wrong.

Again, you have to understand that we feel God feels so strongly that this is a serious decline in morals that it will have a serious affect on the United states of America. If you are Ex LDS you should know what I mean from the BofM.

And we are not forcing our beliefs on anyone, we are merely asking our members to remember to do something they should know to do anyway, that is uphold Gods laws.

Do you oppose civil unions for couples, regardless of their sex?

That would be fine with me.

You support civil unions, then.

#368109

There are too many comments to list them all here. See the forum for the full discussion.

Discuss this article on the forums. (36 posts)