Judge rules that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional

Link to article

Snip from court decision:

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al. (1952) 347 U.S. 483, 494, the Court recognized that the provision of separate but equal educational opportunites to racial minorities "generates a feeing of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." Such logic is equally applicable to the State's structure granting substantial marriage rights but no marriage and is thus a further indication that there is no rational basis for denying marriage ot same-sex couples."


I personally found this intriguing as the Judge is a Republican and of Catholic faith.

This decision will most likely be appealed, but it's a good start for some California couples.

20 years from now we'll look back and wonder how people could have been so bigoted to not allow this in the first place.

Well just because a judge has a certain religious belief or voting record doesn't (shouldn't) mean anything. It just means that judges that weigh those biases more heavily than the facts and prior cases are bad judges.

It just struck me as amazing, since the Judge (most likely) had to set aside his personal beliefs on this issue, which is a hot topic here, and truly look at the case from a neutral stand. Although, that *is* what judges are supposed to do, but I still found it interesting.

It is interesting. Judges are supposed to, ideally, interpret the Constitution and the Law of the Land. It seems very rare to find one who is actually doing just that. Kudos to him!

I read in the paper today that the Judge (Richard Kramer) is known for being above politics and is very well respected.

Wow, I've been in meetings all day and hadn't had a chance to check the news. Thanks for posting this!

Yes, strong kudos to him.

I always find it sad that when justices are nominated, there's a need to ask them all kinds of questions about their politics and personal beliefs. If it were me, I would give the nominee a copy of the constitution and ask, "Can you read?"

11 Down, 39 more to go .....






Wednesday, November 3, 2004

BY DAVID CRARY
ASSOCIATED PRESS

In a resounding, coast-to-coast rejection of gay marriage, voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon - the one state where gay-rights activists hoped to prevail. The bans won by a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi.




http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm1129_20041103.htm

That your weekend score, Alby, or are you making another one of your Look at me, I put an ice pick in my brain and dug around a little! political statements?

Thank you for posting this Juro. I just read this in USA Today and was on my way to post something about it right now.

As a footnote I was married in San Francisco in city hall a few years ago when same-sex marriages were taking place. We didn't want a traditional marriage when members of society were being excluded from that right (would you drink from a whites-only fountain?). So we chose a civil union at San Francisco city hall. It was wonderful.

I should point out, that the civil unions performed at the San Francisco capitol during that period were not just homosexual, as many assume, but also heterosexual, bisexual, and transgender.

~Ulrika~

YEY! So glad to hear it. He is a judge of what I would call "true morality" then to take such an impersonal, and virteous attitude in regards to making his judgements. Very good.

Very good news. And yes, hopefully in 20 years we iwll wonder how any one could be so bigoted, much less so ignorant as to worry so much about what two other people in love want to do.

I still wonder why this is such an issue. Sure I have trouble with pushing lifestyles; straight, homosexual, animal love, or whatever in schools to the younger kids...but why on earth someone would get so friggin' bothered if two same sex people get married is beyond me. And as for the Federal government, where do they get off thinking they can try to enact an amendment to the Constitution banning...sorry "defining" marriage? My education tought me that we are a Democratic Republic, not a pure democracy. Therefore, it is within a state's due parameters (as a member of a Republic of Federated STATES) to establish any law they see fit for marriage...it won't be grandfathered into a states lacking similar laws, but I see no legal basis for the Feds to try to legislate this...just like drug laws (which were enacted for various political means as well.)

Good points, Xtopherxaos.

In a world where heterosexuality is institutionalized (which only benefits -men- in the nuclear family) this is a great day for the goodwill of all

Thanks Ulrika. I firmly believe actions like this truly make a difference.

Apathy is lethal.