Pizza Diavola

Melissa @ Shakesville: “California Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!”

I hear equality coming down the tracks—and they really just need to get the hell out of the way if they don’t want to get crushed. [post title from this quote]

I am so, so, so, so, so, so, so thrilled. So excited. So plain happy that finally, the court stood up and said, “SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL,” in this context. Of course the social conservatives are going to turn out in force, but they were always going to, and we’re going to fight them like mad, and we’re going to win. This decision will change peoples’ lives immediately, and I’m so incredibly thrilled and so happy for them. Cheers to everyone who wants to get married here and now can. Cheers to the thousands of couples who got their licenses in 2004. Cheers to Justices Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, and Carlos Moreno. Cheers to the plaintiffs, Arthur Frederick Adams and Devin Wayne Baker, Alexsis Beach and Rachel Lederman, Myra Beals and Ida Matson, Dave and Jeff Chandler, Sarah and Gillian Conner-Smith, Sarah and Gillian Conner-Smith, Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis, Jewelle Gomez and Diane Sabin, Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, Margot McShane and Alexandra D’Amario, Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper, Joshua Rymer and Timothy Frazer, Karen Shain and Jody Sokolower, Janet Wallace and Deborah Hart, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition. The individual plaintiffs’ statements are available at the NLCR link and are well worth reading for insight in to the immediate human impact of the ruling. Cheers to their legal team, the lead counsel from the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, ACLU, Heller Ehrman LLP, and the Law Office of David Codell.

SF Chronicle, Bob Egelko, “State Supreme Court says same-sex couples have right to marry” (2008/05/15)

But San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office filed one of the suits challenging the marriage law, said the court acted in the best tradition of an independent judiciary.

“Our democratic system was founded on the notion that the courts should not be swayed by public opinion when it comes to protecting our most cherished rights,” Herrera said.

Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose sanctioning of same-sex marriages in 2004 led to today’s ruling, said, “It’s about human dignity. It’s about civil rights. It’s about time.”

Chief Justice George was joined in the majority by Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno. Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan dissented - though Corrigan, writing separately, said she personally believes “Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages.”

…

But George, in a 121-page opinion, said California has already recognized, in its laws and public policy, that gays and lesbians are entitled to equal treatment in every legal area except marriage. He also noted that state laws and traditions banned interracial marriage until the California Supreme Court, in 1948, became the first court in the nation to overturn such a law.

“Even the most familiar and generally accepted of social policies and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed,” the chief justice wrote.

San Jose Mercury News, Howard Mintz, Mary Anne Ostrom and Denis Theriault, “California Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage”

Today’s ruling marks a watershed moment in the conflict over gay marriage, with the most influential state Supreme Court in the nation, dominated by Republican appointees, ruling in favor of gay rights advocates in the state with the largest gay population. California was considered a crucial battleground for civil rights groups, which have lost a number of major legal challenges in recent years in other states such as New York, Washington and New Jersey.

The decision is sure to spark a furor that could spill into the ballot box in November, when there is a strong chance voters will be weighing a ballot initiative to change the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger previously announced his opposition to the ballot initiative, and reiterated his opposition today.

“I respect the court’s decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said within minutes of the ruling. “Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

New York Times, Adam Liptak, “California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage” (2008/05/16)

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote of marriage for the majority, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

…

The first was that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. “The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” the chief justice continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.

The court also struck down state laws banning same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds, adopting a new standard of review in the process.

With few exceptions, courts considering suits from gay men and lesbians claiming legal discrimination of all sorts have applied a relaxed standard of scrutiny under which the government must show only that the challenged law had a rational basis.

In Thursday’s decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the correct standard of review for plaintiffs claiming discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is “strict scrutiny,” the standard used in race-discrimination cases. Under that standard, the government must demonstrate that it has a compelling interest for the law it is defending and that the distinctions drawn by the law are necessary to protect the interest.

Equality California’s Press Release, “Lesbian and Gay Couples Win Freedom to Marry in California” (2008/05/15)

The text of the decision, in PDF.

At last, at last.