BREAKING: California marriage equality ruling coming down tomorrow

if they rule for equality,

what is the likelihood that they will force a delay in the commencement of marriages? that would sadly give the pending amendment time to be voted on.  the massachusetts court made us wait 6 months before marriages could take place.

and you californains out there - if people can marry immediately, do you think this will cause an increased in supp[ort for the amendment, or will people have a "well, the horse has left to barn" attitude?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 14:18:42 PM CDT

...just read the PFLAG announcement.

I expect one to be coming from Equality California too.  

I know I am hoping the ruling allows marriages, immediately. Then that many, many take advantage of it, especially celebrities.  I know George Takei came out simply because he was being denied the right to marry, so I would hope they will be one.

And there should be many others.  Then when the general public sees how happy and real these marriages are, especially if there are children involved, I think that will go a long way to defeat the amendment.  and the Guvernator has said he will work to defeat it too.  He said when turning down signing the law that he wanted the court to decide, whether that was a handy excuse or a real reason, we shall see. I am sure he actually has many, many friends 'in the business; that this applies to.

Don't know how much I will get done with my fingers crossed all day today.. I am hoping this 'early' release is positive... people here were saying May 23. 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 14:26:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

am i right in thinking

that there is no barrier to non-californians coming there to get married?  we could see one huge regional party this lovely june!

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 14:28:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

...do not know residency requirement.

Good point.  Could be having big big do's here in Califonia. As we now know that New York will honor them all, and some may rather come here than having to go to Canada.

Karen? 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 14:31:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

you do not need to be a resident

of California to get a marriage license in California.  And there is no waiting period after you get your license.  It is recommended that you make an appointment with the Clerks office ahead of time to avoid long waiting.  Also, to save time you can fill the the name change paperwork ahead of time to have it ready to submit pronto after the marriage.  Name change forms can be found on the interenet.

---

by: Donna @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 14:43:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

interesting rumor over at Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

---

by: Donna @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 14:53:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

...?? Rumor.

That was posted April 15, read it then, nothing new since then.  That's where we all got May 23 as the 'date.' This 'prematurity' is good.... isn't it?

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 15:27:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What about residency and divorce?

My boyfriend and I wanted to get married in Canada this summer, until we read the mess about divorce, where one person has to be a Canadian citizen for a year before you can get your gay marriage legally dissolved.

Just wondering if it would be similar if non-resident CA marriages want to be dissolved.  

---

by: Rick @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 15:19:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Possibly...

It may be something a court has to decide, with the possible exceptions of residency in Massachusetts or New York.

---

by: the.sue @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:56:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks Sue.

---

by: Rick @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 13:19:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

...and then just let the Sheriff.

Try to confiscate 'spousal' belongings, claiming he does't 'know about the law!'

Straight for Equality California MD 

It's the Hammer of JUSTICE,
It's the Bell of FREEDOM,
It's the Song about LOVE between,
my Brothers and my Sisters
...All over this Land.

---

by: Orion45 @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 14:29:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bad rumours...

http://calitics.com/showDiary....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

:(

---

by: torrentprime @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 19:01:07 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's the rumors from the above links:

The dynamic of this first one is believable to me as bad news.

1)First, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar's only openly gay law clerk abruptly resigned today. I'm still looking to get additional details on this, but I am told that there was no indication of the resignation prior to today.  If you have any further details on this, shoot me an email.

This interpretation to me means the 4-3 majority could rule the State Constitution does not spell out any 'right to marry' and therefore it's up to the Legislature to do whatever (of course which they did but no thanks to one individual....Arunuld....it doesn't matter.
2)Next, from another source intimately familiar with the case and the Court, I'm hearing that the Court is prepared to take a step that stands in stark contrast to their bold and courageous position in Perez v. Sharp.  Specifically, it looks like we might get a decision that dramatically rules against granting individuals the freedom to marry whomever they choose. The total voting correctly could be limited to one justice (if even that) by dissenting from a decision that would be looked back upon as a cop-out at best.

My tally predictions then: Justices Chin, Baxter, Werdegar (dang I thought she would be the swing vote) and Corrigan throw us under the bus.

Justices George,  Kennard, and Moreno support marriage equality although George and Moreno might stoically go along with the majority argument that it is not the Court's place to decide.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 19:16:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

hey patrick

come back and comment again, your long string of text "broke" the layout. Put some spaces in there, lolol.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 14:51:25 PM CDT

I noticed that...sorry

2nd attempt:

Inhale deeply...

HHoly Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit Holy Shit

and exhale!!

---

by: Patrick @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 16:04:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

def clear cut?

will the ruling be 100% marriage or no, or may they do something like in Jersey and say civil unions or something less than?

http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

---

by: hippie4lyfe @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 16:22:19 PM CDT

no way to know

until they release the decision tomorrow.  unless you have a crystal ball...

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 16:26:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cliff Hangers

I've really grown to loathe these cliff-hangers.  And this one is a double edged sword - if they rule for marriage equality the religious people will be really pushing the marriage amendment this fall.  I'm kind of hoping for civil unions - that way the right wing wouldn't be energized as much.

---

by: lampster @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 16:26:54 PM CDT

California's DP law already grants "civil unions", so...

I am not a lawyer, but...

With California's domestic partnership already guaranteeing the same rights as marriage, I don't see how they could do a half-assed ruling like NJ's.  

The case is pretty clear-cut, given California's strong guarantee of equal protection in the state constitution, AND the fact that our new Democratic A.G. Jerry Brown was in charge of making the case for discrimination and perhaps didn't choose the strongest legal arguments.

---

by: chiefscribe @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 16:40:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Does it have the same rights as marriage?

There's been at least one court case already where it was found to be an unequal status at the state level.

---

by: the.sue @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 22:08:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not me

i'm hoping for real marriage, no matter the outfall.  the state already have full domestic partnerships.  there is nothing to be gained by a "civil unions are enough" decision.  the religious nuts will be fired up no matter what.  the best thing we can offer to the public in balance is the sight of thousands of loving couples and their families, finally getting a blissful june wedding.  people love people in love.  they love to see happy families.  this will blunt anything the religious nuts can throw.  that is, if the court allows people to marry immediately or thereabouts.  a 6 month stay would be the death knell for marriage in ca i bet.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 16:44:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As much as if the Court finds that marriage is an individual right?

Because you seem to have said that there is an outcome we could settle for, under which the forces of evil will be less inclined to vote to restrict our freedoms.

And that just doesn't scan.

We're not in this situation because we asked for equality at the wrong time or in the wrong way, we're in this situation because a small, mean gang of loudmouths gain political power and funding from their efforts to make us miserable.

The good news is, they're dying out. The bad news is, not fast enough.

But wait, there's more!

---

by: PhoenixRising @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 17:49:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

right on target

in my experience in massachusetts, there was NO ONE except a few legislators who wanted civil unions.  the gay people didn;t want them, because they are intrinsically unequal and inferior.  the haters didn't want them because they approached marriage for gays, and that is still repugnant to them.  civil unions had such little support in massachusetts that on of the two co-authors of the civil unions "compromise" bill ended up voting against his own bill!

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 19:17:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only thing for sure is no procreation bulls**t

The case was the constitutionality of denying same gender couples marriage.
I figure there will be some complication with the darned 2000 Prop22 which was a voter initiative statute passed by general election.  

One thing for sure from this State Supreme Court unlike NJ and Washington and I think maybe Conn....CA Supreme Court is NOT going to do the ole 'marriage is for procreation' thing.  Head Justice basically already said that's not an acceptable argument during the oral hearings in March.

One result, like in other state would be the usual...it's up to the Legislature routine.  Well, the CA Legislature has not once, but twice PASSED a marriage equality law....As Lurleen pointed out however, almost anytime line mandated for promoted by the court will be a moot point if marriage equality is not allowable before the November election.  

I don't know what the court will do....I can't believe the ruling hasn't been leaked.  

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 17:10:48 PM CDT

I wonder...

...if that fact will carry any weight with the CA Supreme Court.

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 17:57:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yeah, as long as procreation is allowed regardless of marriage

then it makes no sense to prohibit marriage.  But what allowing same-sex marriage says is that same-sex procreation is either a right, or marriage does not protect procreation rights.  Either one of those outcomes is very bad.  We should not allow labs to try to create people from modified gametes, only unmodified gametes should be allowed to be used, which requires a male and a female.

It's doubtful the court is even aware of same-sex conception, but they know that it isn't prohibited.

---

by: Locke @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 19:31:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hi John Howard.

How's life under the troll bridge?  Castrated any same-sex couples lately, or are ya still as impotent as ever?

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 19:34:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i tell ya, i get no respect, no respect at all

Still plugging away, raising awareness of an important issue, and trying to get us through this frustrating logjam that keeps so many same-sex couples from achieving equal protections.  

Hey Pam, have you thought about the pros and cons of insisting on same-sex conception rights, versus conceding that people should only be allowed to conceive with unmodified gametes?  Are you a "biological children are necessary" or a "love makes a family" person?  Do you think that all marriages should have a right to use their own genes to have children, or do you think that the state ought to be able to prohibit a marriage from conceiving?

---

by: Locke @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 20:04:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not a compound

Is this the egg/sperm dude??  Man you are seriously weird.

I just had same sex conception in my pants buddy.

Are you living in a compound in Texas dressed like a dime store Mildred Pierce, by any chance??  I think I see you in this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

---

by: Patrick @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 19:56:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, who called it?

This is the gist of the decision right here.  The decision was about the name, saying that as long as the rights are the same, then using a different name makes no sense and just insults and hurts same-sex couples.

And they leave the ball in play regarding public policy of allowing same-sex couples to have all the rights of marriage.

---

by: Locke @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 15:04:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Am hoping they finally have some good arguments...

...since there's a similar case pending here in Iowa. I can't believe the justices here won't at least read the CA opinion--whether they admit to it or not.

Of course, I'm still hopeful, since two lieutenant governors of this state (both women, one from each major party) submitted an amicus brief in support of the couples--not to mention the religious groups with their own supportive amicus brief.  

"More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn't read." -- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

---

by: Switchhttr69 @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 18:02:41 PM CDT

Punt

I'm not a lawyer but here is my layman's impression of what could happen tomorrow.

A punt might not be so bad in this case. The main thing we need them to do is rule Prop 22, the LAW (not a constitutional amendment) that banned the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, unconstitutional.

Given that the Legislature has passed a Marriage Equality Bill twice and the reason Schwarzenegger gave for vetoing it was Prop 22 (the wording was ambiguous enough that it could be read to also ban recognition of same-sex marriages performed in California). The Court could conclude that there is no reason for them to rule on whether the state Constitution mandates recognition of same-sex marriage since the Legislature has already indicated their intentions to legalize it. Even if they rule specifically that the Constitution does not mandate recognition, we could still probably get another bill passed and signed.

The problem is if the Constitutional Amendment gets on the ballot, then it would either be delayed until after that's decided or passed but suspended until after November.

On the other hand, if the Court rules that same-sex marriages must be recognized, then that would be the law unless and until that decision was overruled by the voters. Of course, they might delay the starting date (even without the threat of an Amendment) to give local governments time to prepare. I believe that is what happened in Massachusetts.

Either way, we are going to have to defeat that Initiative, which I strongly believe we can do, but it would be nice if there was a window where some marriages could be performed before then.

---

by: claudew @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 18:46:00 PM CDT

Those are some good scenarios

Those are some good scenarios claudew.  I'm hopeful for any of the above.

I've been tracking the signature varification at the CA Secretary of State website.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/election...
The anti gay marriage amendment is on track to qualify.  It would be really great to get a window of time to have some marriages performed.  Meanwhile, Mark Leno, the main sponsor of the equality bills is in a major primary campaign battle for State Senate seat with another incumbent, lesbian Carol Midgen.  Dang...we need their creative legislative powers to be strategizing the next marriage equality bill now.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 18:54:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Pessimist Here

I am glad to hear all the optimism.  I really really hope yall are right.  In listening to the judges at the oral arguments, I counted heads and arrived at a bad decision.  With the early decision, I think we lose and lose big.  No marriage freedom.  In some way, the Court is going to demand that the people decide in a vote, not the legislature.  I am real pessimistic.  Sorry.  Really really hope I am wrong ... but I think I am right.

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

---

by: Dagon @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:35:10 PM CDT

it's hard not to be pessimistic,

given the recent history of judicial failure on this topic.  but if it makes you feel better, i hope you're wrong too. ;)

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:37:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If I am Right ...

I hope there is massive civil disobedience.  Massive and pervasive and not nice.

The fight for full LGBT Equality is NOT over.  Be strong and be ready to really fight!  And read my blog in your spare time! http://ravenhurst-ravenhurst.b...

---

by: Dagon @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:36:41 PM CDT

there won't be

because a) most people just can't get riled up for civil rights these days, and b) people will want to present the respectable face to voters come november.

sorry to ruin your fun - some window smashing and car turning could be awfully cathartic...

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:39:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Civil Disobedience

does not necessarily equal window smashing and car turning.

I'd be happy with some large peaceful and legal demonstrations. Up to now, the turnout for protests after the two Schwarzenegger vetoes have been hundreds at best. In the 70s, we could put ten thousand people in the streets of San Francisco at the drop of a hat. When Anita Bryant launched here hateful campaign there was an immediate response all over the country. I chaired a meeting of 1200 people who formed an ad-hoc coalition that organized a boycott of Florida Orange Juice and raised money to fight Bryant's ballot initiative in Dade County.

The biggest demonstrations which have occurred lately have been staged for the Harvey Milk movie reenacting demonstrations in the 70s. The internet is great but for the most part, we are talking to ourselves and people who already agree with us.

If we really believe that the right to marry is a basic human right than we need to act like it. Can you imagine if any other group was denied the right to marry? The analogy to interracial marriage isn't really the same because most black people didn't want to marry white people. In fact, the 80% that was opposed to interracial marriage probably included the majority of blacks as well as whites. We often leave that part out.

A better analogy would be if blacks could only marry whites, just as we are only allowed to marry people of the opposite sex, or were not allowed to marry at all. If that had been the case, can you imagine the reaction of black people? If that had been the law and most black people were condemned to a life of "living in sin" and all children of black relationships were considered "illegitimate", I'd bet that the repeal of those laws would have been an even bigger priority for the black community than desegregating the schools or repeal of Jim Crow laws. I wanted to say that to Obama when he said he would have advised the Civil Rights movement not to make repeal of anti-miscegenation laws a priority.

If we really saw the denial of our right to legally marry as the grievous denial of human rights that it is - one that contributed to the AIDS crisis - then we would be reacting in very different ways. Is it any wonder that many of our straight allies don't take our movement as serious as other movements for civil and human rights if we don't take it that seriously ourselves?

---

by: claudew @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 22:53:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i was being playful

with the car turning business.

california equality already has organized "day of decision" locations to meet, whether in celebration or some form of protest.  go to eqca.org for details.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 23:29:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good luck

I live in Québec, where we have had marriage equality since 2004.

I am keeping my fingers crossed for you, though we will miss the tourists who come to tie the knot.

"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Abp Peter Akinola

---

by: toujoursdan @ Wed May 14, 2008 at 21:51:20 PM CDT

Re: "DP same as marriage"

Hey all,

DP in California grants essentially the same rights as STATE marriage (except for some minor tax laws that have to comply with federal law.)  The big inequalities are that 1) it's not portable out of state, unlike any straight couple's marriage from any state in the country---so a married couple even going out of state on holiday become legal strangers when they cross the state line, and 2) DP does not grant the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities of marriage, including stuff like social security benefits.  So if someone says "DP = marriage, it's just the name" that's not true.  The real win if same-sex couples were able to have marriage called marriage in CA because the court finds that anything less is less than equal in the court decision today is in the legal precedent that it would create in the larger push for trying to get the whole deal---federal rights and portability.  

---

by: Heidi @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:46:26 AM CDT

Why don't we put our own PRO-gay marriage amendment on the ballot?

Instead of continually playing defense, we should put this question up EVERY DAMN YEAR in EVERY DAMN STATE until it passes.  Make all those "friends" who say it's not for the courts to decide put their bigotry on record.  It also takes away the lame "activist judge" argument.

---

by: bgkev @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:31:29 AM CDT

I agree!

Why aren't we more actively getting out there and creating petitions to legalize marriage equality? We can keep on changing hearts and minds with our basic reality of being decent, hard-working people and then petition each election cycle to overturn the already passed amendments in state's where that stain has passed and then try and get marriage equality approved by the voters themselves. It's entirely democratic and does remove some anti-gay objections. It'll be an uphill battle for sure but it puts our faces out there on the street corners, gathering signatures.  

---

by: 777.shane @ Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:47:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]