Calif high court upholds gay marriage ban

Wednesday 27th May, 06:17 AM JST

SAN FRANCISCO —

California’s Supreme Court upheld the state’s gay-marriage ban Tuesday but said the 18,000 same-sex weddings that took place before the prohibition passed are still valid — a ruling decried by gay-rights activists as a hollow victory.

Demonstrators outside the court booed, wept and yelled, “Shame on you!” Activists said they would go back to the voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal the ban.

In a 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George, the court rejected arguments that the ban approved by the voters last fall was such a fundamental change in the California Constitution that it first needed the Legislature’s approval.

As for the thousands of couples who tied the knot last year in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California, the court said it is well-established principle that an amendment is not retroactive unless it is clear that the voters intended it to be, and that was not the case with Proposition 8.

Moreover, the court said it would be too disruptive to apply Proposition 8 retroactively and dissolve all gay marriages.

Doing that would have the effect of “throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by this state’s highest court,” the ruling said.

While gay rights advocates accused the court of failing to protect a minority group from the will of the majority, the justices said that the state’s governing framework gives voters almost unfettered ability to change the California Constitution.

The decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse, holding signs and waving rainbow flags. Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.

“We’re relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to marry those they love,” said Amber Weiss, 32, who was in the crowd at City Hall, near the courthouse, with her partner, Sharon Papo. They were married on the first day gay marriage was legal last year, June 17.

“I feel very uncomfortable being in a special class of citizens,” Papo said.

Jeanne Rizzo, 62, who was one of the plaintiffs along with her wife, Pali Cooper, said: “It’s not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over. I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I’m going to continue to fight for equality every day.”

A small group of Proposition 8 supporters also gathered outside the court.

“A lot of people just assume we’re religious nuts. We’re not. But we are Christians and we believe in the Bible,” said George Popko, 22, a student at American River College in Sacramento, where the student government officially endorsed Proposition 8.

In the state capital, Republican state Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo, the incoming minority leader, said the court’s decision “reaffirmed the principle that the people’s votes do matter.”

The state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. For a while, that put California — the nation’s most populous state — back in its familiar position in the vanguard of social change; at the time, Massachusetts was the only other state to allow gay marriage.

In what gay activists called their “Summer of Love,” same-sex couples from around the country rushed to get married in California for fear the voters would take away the right at the ballot box. In November, Proposition 8 passed with 52% approval.

Over the past several months, as the fight went on in California, Iowa, Maine, Vermont and Connecticut legalized gay marriage, bringing to five the number of states that allow same-sex couples to wed.

In California, gay rights activists argued that the ban was improperly put to the voters and amounted to a revision — which required legislative approval — not an amendment. But the justices disagreed.

The court said that while the ban denies gay couples use of the term “marriage,” it does not fundamentally disturb their basic right to “establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one’s choice and to raise children within the family.” California still allows gay couples to form domestic partnerships.

In their 136-page majority ruling, the justices said it not their job to address whether the ban is wise public policy, but to decide whether it is constitutionally valid, while “setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

Justice Carlos Moreno, who had been under consideration as President Barack Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, was the lone dissenter.

He said denying same-sex couples the right to wed “strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution.” He said it represents a “drastic and far-reaching change.”

“Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all,” Moreno said. “Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment.”

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office fought the ban, said: “Today we are faced with a disappointing decision. But I think we also know it could have been worse.”

Democratic state Sen Christine Kehoe of San Diego said that California “has lost its lead in the fight for civil rights for all people.” And Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco warned the ruling would create “apartheid” in California.

› Login to comment

8 Comments

adaydream at 07:48 AM JST - 27th May

To get the equality blacks and women have they have had to push forward time after time and year after year. So will the gays. It is time for change in the US towards gays. < :-)
TheQuestion at 07:48 AM JST - 27th May

GLAD can petition, rally support, and get another vote on the ballot like everyone else that wants a law passed. With time and effort they can probably get the voters on their side.
skipthesong at 07:09 PM JST - 27th May

aday: You have to get real. Comparing the this issue with those of blacks and women back in the day is disgusting.

In reality, one does not need to know if you are gay or straight nor can they. Not the same with gays. The more pushing they do, the more they are going to lose support.
amerijap at 11:31 PM JST - 27th May

That is the biggest disappointment and the worst nightmare to Californians.
Helter_Skelter at 05:06 AM JST - 28th May

That is the biggest disappointment and the worst nightmare to Californians.

Geez. We're talking about gay marriage. Let's get a little perspective here.

The bigger story is that a California court actually upheld a majority vote by the people that would be considered conservative. That's a first.
Molenir at 05:08 AM JST - 28th May

Very good decision on the part of the supreme court, to actually uphold their constitution, rather then just throwing it out as the gay marriage people were saying they should do. See, like it or not, Californians passed an amendment to the constitution that strictly defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Throwing out that amendment would have meant they were abrogating their own constitution. And they really didn't want to do that. Even in California.

So, if the Gay Marriage people really want this, they need to go to the people of California, and try to convince them, that its in the best interest of society. Personally, I think the more they scream about this, the less likely they are to be able to get this changed. Particularly using the tactics that they have been. Going after a church because they supported the amendment which is clearly in line with their beliefs... While its typical liberal tactics, its just so very wrong.
Good_Jorb at 05:25 AM JST - 28th May

So, if the Gay Marriage people really want this, they need to go to the people of California, and try to convince them, that its in the best interest of society. Personally, I think the more they scream about this, the less likely they are to be able to get this changed.

Not unlike the tea partyers and the whole tranny of the majority thing. Ironic considering that tea partyers, are one of the least likely groups to support gay rights.
Betzee at 01:40 PM JST - 28th May

As a Golden Stater, I think the court's decision, which will throw it back to the electorate, is a good thing. Prop 8, which trailed for quite a while, passed with just 52 percent of the vote. It is said proponents created a disinformation campaign scaring parents by telling them, "it will force schools to promote the gay lifestyle." A re-vote is almost certain and far preferable to a judicial ruling. Young voters overwhelmingly support same sex marriage and there are more of them every year.

Even since November, the ground has shifted quite a bit. The northern New England states have all legalized same-sex marriage. More libertarian than liberal, our country's "live free or die" roots were planted there. Hell, you don't even need to fly across the country, gay couples need go no further than Iowa.

My brother, a long-term resident of California, was married in Maine over two decades ago. No one has ever questioned his status. A gay couple could do the same thing. Yet it wouldn't be the same; the Federal Defense of Marriage Act prevents married gay couples from, for example, filing a joint tax return. What possible concern is it to the state whether it's a same sex couple or heterosexual?

Gay families have been profiled in the newspaper, including those where one partner is a foreign national with no basis to remain in the USA. If they were heterosexual, it'd be no problem, the other partner could sponsor him/her. Here, too, the lack of federal recognition is breaking up families.