Top court upholds gay marriage ban
May 26, 2009 | 963 views | 9 9 comments | 7 7 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Same-sex marriage advocates block a street in San Francisco after the state Supreme Court ruled today to uphold a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. AP Photo/Paul Sakuma
Same-sex marriage advocates block a street in San Francisco after the state Supreme Court ruled today to uphold a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. AP Photo/Paul Sakuma
slideshow
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage today, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who wed before the law took effect will stay married.

Demonstrators outside the court yelled "shame on you!"

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with the measure, Proposition 8, or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."

They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they yelled "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.

Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8.

The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.

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

The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed.

When the proposition did pass, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters and amounted to a revision — which required legislative approval — not an amendment. That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.

"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote the dissenting opinion disagreeing that the proposition did not change the constitution's equal protection clause. He said the law 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.
Comments
(9)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
ConcernedNeighbor
|
May 27, 2009
Funny, treated many gay people of ALL RACES, some hide it better than others due to stigmas in their own cultures.

All race and every culture have their own standard and each individual has had to deal with their own peoples' religion and culture. Stigmas placed by every culture are more pronounced in some than others.

doors17
|
May 27, 2009
I've never accepted the argument that being gay is a choice. After all did any of you choose ?

I'm also part of a 8% minority group that at one time was once scorned at by society and many religions, I'm left handed, and I didn't choose to be in this right handed world. It's the way God made me.
IMHO
|
May 27, 2009
Not sure what being a 'white male' has anything to do with this at all. Aren't many if not most gays in the area white males? Way to arbitrarily attack and stereotype a whole group of people. Just because you think people may agree with you doesn't make it right. It is exactly the same as saying this about a black male. If you can't understand this, then there's no point talking to you.
briandub
|
May 26, 2009
Its a slippery slope when majority rule trumps equal rights. that being said, with the current demographics of our state white males are not the majority so it would be funny to see the tables turned and to hear the nice latina corn vendor yell to the white man as he entered the bus "vente para tras" as she told him to take his place in the back row
fortheunderdog
|
May 26, 2009
Pretty much what everyone thought would happen. Justice's HAD to protect the rights of voters who voted "YES" on Prop 8, then they had to protect those gays who married when gay marriage was legal by upholding their marriage status.
briandub
|
May 26, 2009
Well those who spoke by voting to "protect" a word through the act of blocking the rights of people who are only slighlty different than the majority can now sleep at ease knowing only heterosexual couples will be allowed to marry and eventually divorce 50% of the time.
doors17
|
May 26, 2009
I'm disappointed, but not shocked by the decision.

But this is the way to do it, use the courts not protest with violence. It will only give the cause you believe in a bad name. Equality for all will happen soon. Just not today.
st8talk
|
May 26, 2009
Glad to see that the California Justice's finally stopped ejudicating policy from the bench. 6-1 upholding Prop. 8 is a strong signal to the state that we still can have a voice in how the government is run in this state. I don't doubt that this issue will come up again in the next election, and those who still uphold marriage as a sacred union of a man and woman will need to defend it again.
shelly13
|
May 26, 2009
Though I may not agree with it, the voters have spoken and we must (for now) live with it.

It should have been that way from the start. They lost the vote. Try again in a few years guys....


We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at tpnews@tracypress.com.