Marriage Case Moves to Cali Supreme Court

[One Eyed Cat]

Sad Part: The legislature has passed the law twice. Arnold has actually been stronger than most democrats on other GLBT issues. He refuses to sign it. Cali could have been the first state to have same-sex marriage exclusively through the legislative process. I'm hoping The Supreme Court will call for "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions". I thank W for extracting Janice Rogers Brown from the Court. I respect her in the same way I would a Scalia or Thomas. The D.C. Circuit will likely begin holding sessions at a local church. - JT

Marriage Lawsuit Advances to California Supreme Court

Briefs Argue Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

SAN FRANCISCO - In briefs filed today with the California Supreme Court, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argue that California violates its own constitution by denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry.


"Everyone knows marriage has no substitute," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "Marriage is the way loving couples express their commitment and love, and this is true for lesbian and gay couples as well, who long for the opportunity to marry. The time has come to bring this unconstitutional discrimination to an end."


The organizations filed the briefs in the coordinated marriage cases now before the California Supreme Court. They respond to arguments presented by the state of California, which is defending the discriminatory law, and to four supplemental questions asked by the California Supreme Court on June 20. NCLR, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, Heller Ehrman LLP, and the Law Office of David C. Codell represent 15 same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition.


"Marriage validates relationships and strengthens California families by honoring the commitments of every loving couple," said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. "We have already learned that domestic partnerships and civil unions cannot replace the critical legal protections, universal recognition and dignity that marriage affords. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage denies countless couples legal recognition of the love they share."


The California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last year after the California Court of Appeal reversed a decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer finding that barring same-sex couples from marriage unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex and violates the fundamental right to marry.

"Anything less than marriage leaves lesbian and gay couples in a confusing and discriminatory twilight zone," said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Jennifer C. Pizer. "We know this because we answer the distress calls every day-calls that began with the first statewide domestic partner bill in 1999 and haven't slowed as the law broadened over the years. To the contrary, the distress calls have increased as more couples register, hoping to shield their families, and encounter inconsistent, incomplete protections. We've welcomed the Supreme Court's invitation to explain how far domestic partnerships fall short of full marriage."

On September, 17, more than 250 religious and civil rights organizations, including the California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, California Council of Churches, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and National Black Justice Coalition, will file friend-of-the-court amicus briefs in support of marriage for same-sex couples. The briefing process concludes with responses to amicus briefs, which are due in October. The Court will set oral arguments at the conclusion of the briefing.


The 15 represented couples have made life-long commitments to each other. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have been together more than 50 years. Karen Shane and Judy Sokolower have been together more than 30 years. The couples come from across the state and from all walks of life, with some working in business, some in education, and others in health professions. Many are raising children together. Others are retired.


"When two people fall in love and decide to get married, they are saying to the world, 'this is my family; this is my dream for the future,'" said Tamara Lange, a Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU' "We think the court will see that same-sex couples fall in love just like everyone else and shouldn't be denied the ability to fulfill their dreams through marriage."


This Supreme Court is considering six marriage cases under the title In re Marriage Cases. The briefs field today and other information about the case are available for download:


Download a PDF file of the supplemental brief
Download a PDF file of the consolidated reply brief on the merits.


-- I am a member of http://www.eqca.org I doubt most here would find this disclosure necessary for me to reiterate, but one should always keep matters like this on the level. - Jackie T

[Donald Rilea]

Sad Part: The legislature has passed the law twice. Arnold has actually been stronger than most democrats on other GLBT issues. He refuses to sign it. Cali could have been the first state to have same-sex marriage exclusively through the legislative process. I'm hoping The Supreme Court will call for "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions". I thank W for extracting Janice Rogers Brown from the Court. I respect her in the same way I would a Scalia or Thomas. The D.C. Circuit will likely begin holding sessions at a local church. - JT

Marriage Lawsuit Advances to California Supreme Court

Briefs Argue Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

SAN FRANCISCO - In briefs filed today with the California Supreme Court, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argue that California violates its own constitution by denying same-sex couples the freedom to marry.


"Everyone knows marriage has no substitute," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "Marriage is the way loving couples express their commitment and love, and this is true for lesbian and gay couples as well, who long for the opportunity to marry. The time has come to bring this unconstitutional discrimination to an end."


The organizations filed the briefs in the coordinated marriage cases now before the California Supreme Court. They respond to arguments presented by the state of California, which is defending the discriminatory law, and to four supplemental questions asked by the California Supreme Court on June 20. NCLR, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, Heller Ehrman LLP, and the Law Office of David C. Codell represent 15 same-sex couples, Equality California, and Our Family Coalition.


"Marriage validates relationships and strengthens California families by honoring the commitments of every loving couple," said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors. "We have already learned that domestic partnerships and civil unions cannot replace the critical legal protections, universal recognition and dignity that marriage affords. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage denies countless couples legal recognition of the love they share."


The California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last year after the California Court of Appeal reversed a decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer finding that barring same-sex couples from marriage unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex and violates the fundamental right to marry.

"Anything less than marriage leaves lesbian and gay couples in a confusing and discriminatory twilight zone," said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Jennifer C. Pizer. "We know this because we answer the distress calls every day-calls that began with the first statewide domestic partner bill in 1999 and haven't slowed as the law broadened over the years. To the contrary, the distress calls have increased as more couples register, hoping to shield their families, and encounter inconsistent, incomplete protections. We've welcomed the Supreme Court's invitation to explain how far domestic partnerships fall short of full marriage."

On September, 17, more than 250 religious and civil rights organizations, including the California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, California Council of Churches, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and National Black Justice Coalition, will file friend-of-the-court amicus briefs in support of marriage for same-sex couples. The briefing process concludes with responses to amicus briefs, which are due in October. The Court will set oral arguments at the conclusion of the briefing.


The 15 represented couples have made life-long commitments to each other. Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin have been together more than 50 years. Karen Shane and Judy Sokolower have been together more than 30 years. The couples come from across the state and from all walks of life, with some working in business, some in education, and others in health professions. Many are raising children together. Others are retired.


"When two people fall in love and decide to get married, they are saying to the world, 'this is my family; this is my dream for the future,'" said Tamara Lange, a Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU' "We think the court will see that same-sex couples fall in love just like everyone else and shouldn't be denied the ability to fulfill their dreams through marriage."


This Supreme Court is considering six marriage cases under the title In re Marriage Cases. The briefs field today and other information about the case are available for download:


Download a PDF file of the supplemental brief
Download a PDF file of the consolidated reply brief on the merits.


-- I am a member of http://www.eqca.org I doubt most here would find this disclosure necessary for me to reiterate, but one should always keep matters like this on the level. - Jackie T

Jackie, hadn't known of EQCA's existence until I clicked on the link you provided, but I appreciate you saying that you were a member. Appreciate that kind of honesty very much.

[Amelia G]

The whole notion of the government deciding what is and is not marriage, in my opinion, violates separation of church and state. I think the government should recognize civil unions for all people equally under the law and what a civil union is thought of, in marriage terms or handfasting or whatever, should be up to personal choice and the free exercise of religion. Leave calling it marriage in the hands of the people and their personal beliefs where it belongs.

[ForrestBlack]

JT, since you are very familiar with these matters and understand the debate in detail, can you clearly explain what the exact difference is between a full rights civil union and a marriage is?

[bohoki]

i think the state and federal government shouldnt recognise any marriages

marriages seem to mostly be a religious ceremony anyway for government use there should be domestic incorporations where each person owns stock and everything is clearly accounted for in case of dissalusionment

if the government has the right to outlaw polygamy then it clearly has the right to enforce one man one woman

also there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution it only limits acts of congress

[One Eyed Cat]

JT, since you are very familiar with these matters and understand the debate in detail, can you clearly explain what the exact difference is between a full rights civil union and a marriage is?

At the federal level, a same-sex couple would be denied all rights and responsibilities associated with marriage regardless of whether the union was called a "civil union" or "marriage". In the states, the devil would be in the details. A same-sex married couple in Massachusetts has the same *state* rights and responsibilities as an opposite-sex couple. My understanding of the NJ case and Vermont: They have the same state rights as a married couple. NJ has struggled to properly adjust the laws to reflect this though.

The Federal Defense of Marriage foreclosed the possibility of extending the some 1100+ rights and responsibilities to any same-sex union, domestic partnership (which tend to have some but not all right as civil unions or marriage) and same-sex marriage itself.

The Democratic candidates have, for the most part, declared a desire to overturn DOMA. At that point, same-sex married couples (and civil unions depending on the details) would have the same rights as any married couple.

The reason for wanting the term "marriage" is based on rejecting a "separate but equal" status for same-sex unions. Additionally, terms such as "civil unions" would require additional changes to federal law.

Finally, states have historically defined marriage. Currently, there are no federal constitutional challenges to DOMA or the recognition of same-sex marriage as a national right. The reason being? It would be shot down. As much as the attorneys who fight for things believe in this right on principle, losses are *major* setbacks and become part of the doctrine of "stare decisis" (respect given to precedent).

It's a tough issue, Forrest. At this point, you just hope for incremental change. I'm hoping the Cali Supreme Court goes with "marriage" primarily to set an additional precedent NJ failed to do in a 5-4 decision (all Justices favored civil unions in the NJ Supreme Court but left it to the legislature to decide).

JT

[One Eyed Cat]

The whole notion of the government deciding what is and is not marriage, in my opinion, violates separation of church and state. I think the government should recognize civil unions for all people equally under the law and what a civil union is thought of, in marriage terms or handfasting or whatever, should be up to personal choice and the free exercise of religion. Leave calling it marriage in the hands of the people and their personal beliefs where it belongs.

The way model laws are generally framed: They would all be civil marriages with the same *legal rights* and responsibilities. Churches would be free to sanctify or not sanctify these unions as they saw fit. Naturally, this completely moots the church's relevance to the actual legal status of the union (which they don't really have with opposite-sex couples anyways)

JT

[One Eyed Cat]

i think the state and federal government shouldnt recognise any marriages

marriages seem to mostly be a religious ceremony anyway for government use there should be domestic incorporations where each person owns stock and everything is clearly accounted for in case of dissalusionment

if the government has the right to outlaw polygamy then it clearly has the right to enforce one man one woman

also there is no seperation of church and state in the constitution it only limits acts of congress

Interesting. Some libertarians have made this argument. I believe the extension of marriage to same-sex couples is more realistic.

JT

[One Eyed Cat]

Jackie, hadn't known of EQCA's existence until I clicked on the link you provided, but I appreciate you saying that you were a member. Appreciate that kind of honesty very much.

No problem. I don't believe in "hiding the ball" on folks here. I would be happy to disclose other associations/organizations I belong to were I asked (within the boundaries of my personal privacy obviously)

JT

[Exquisite]

Why on earth don't people get that this is an issue of rights. This should just happen already ... oy

*hugs for JT*

[ForrestBlack]

Forgive me if I missed it in the overview, Jackie, but can you specifically outline for me what the exact differences are between a full rights civil union and a marriage?

You covered a lot of issues in your previous reply to me, and I appreciate that, but I'm really interested in this specific core answer.

All I really got, as far as this inquiry goes, is that potentially a full rights civil union would give a couple all the same rights and responsibilities a marriage would, but only within the state it was granted, as opposed to a traditional marriage, which would be recognized anywhere within the full United States. Is that a correct understanding of what you were saying? Is that the full extent of the difference between the two?

[One Eyed Cat]

Forgive me if I missed it in the overview, Jackie, but can you specifically outline for me what the exact differences are between a full rights civil union and a marriage?

You covered a lot of issues in your previous reply to me, and I appreciate that, but I'm really interested in this specific core answer.

All I really got, as far as this inquiry goes, is that potentially a full rights civil union would give a couple all the same rights and responsibilities a marriage would, but only within the state it was granted, as opposed to a traditional marriage, which would be recognized anywhere within the full United States. Is that a correct understanding of what you were saying? Is that the full extent of the difference between the two?

Yes. There have been some issues in NJ with the wording of certain laws, but in VT and NJ they are required to be the same as traditional marriage under state law.

Keep in mind though: In the absence of a State Supreme Court Case dictating identical rights, a state could pass a law on civil unions which omitted some state rights afforded to traditional marriage.

JT

[One Eyed Cat]

Why on earth don't people get that this is an issue of rights. This should just happen already ... oy

*hugs for JT*

[evilstonermonkey]

ive never understood how it was possible for attempts to make same-sex marriage to fail. it is blatant discrimination, and (though im a little out of the loop) ive never heard a single reason for not allowing it that wasnt either complete bullshit or religious doctrine (oh wait, i already said that :P). what are some of the basises that have been used for shooting it down in the past?

[helcyon]

what are some of the basises that have been used for shooting it down in the past?

I've heard a few but they mostly seem to rely on a basic prejudice against homosexuality, scaremongering with predictions of societal doom or outright fantasy (and I suspect some of their personal fantasies are not quite as wholesome as they are portraying themselves to be... well i hope not for their sakes). Not a lot of good arguments are forthcoming from that side of the debate it seems which tends to suggest that there aren't too many probably (seeing as anti same-sex marriage folk are not short on effort trying to make them up or publishing material).

For instance on http://www.nogaymarriage.com the attempts are frankly laughable (to me anyway as I'm sometimes a little removed from the core interest groups even though the atmosphere in this town is reasonably tolerant of the pro same-sex side overall I think) and range from "it will lead to a rise in polygamy" (fantasy) to severe "impact on social security payments" (maybe but that's prejudice implying some people should get them and some not) to "divorces will be obtained instantly" (so?). I don't care if I'm not quoting exactly... I just don't.

There is a satirical list from the university of Florida http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html giving 12 reasons why same-sex marriages shouldn't occur (actually debunking them at the same time)... worth a quick look... for instance reason number one is "Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural. ". As far as I know it occurs pretty naturally in the natural world anyway... even leaving humans out of the argument.

differences ... between a full rights civil union and a marriage

yes well I'm no expert but it seems that it depends on where you are. In the UK a fella can rush off and "civil partnership" Elton John and expect the same rights as a "marriage" of any other sort (if you wanted to that is... the cad got married to a girl out here in Australia years ago and dumped her almost immediately treating it as a big joke... pity she wasn't in on it). In some countries it seems they allow the "union" but that's it pretty much it... you don't get any of the traditional rights of married couples (or de-facto couples which are just as recognised as married here in Aus). Then again you could do worse... don't bring it up in the Carribean or much of Africa if you want to remain uninjured.

Perhaps a benefit of calling it a "civil union" rather than a "marriage" is that it allows marriages to remain the province of "religion" completely seperate to the idea of a "union"... something like what bohoki said previously. Then again maybe you could wear a T-shirt saying "Marry them all... let god sort them out".

[One Eyed Cat]

I've heard a few but they mostly seem to rely on a basic prejudice against homosexuality, scaremongering with predictions of societal doom or outright fantasy (and I suspect some of their personal fantasies are not quite as wholesome as they are portraying themselves to be... well i hope not for their sakes). Not a lot of good arguments are forthcoming from that side of the debate it seems which tends to suggest that there aren't too many probably (seeing as anti same-sex marriage folk are not short on effort trying to make them up or publishing material).

For instance on http://www.nogaymarriage.com the attempts are frankly laughable (to me anyway as I'm sometimes a little removed from the core interest groups even though the atmosphere in this town is reasonably tolerant of the pro same-sex side overall I think) and range from "it will lead to a rise in polygamy" (fantasy) to severe "impact on social security payments" (maybe but that's prejudice implying some people should get them and some not) to "divorces will be obtained instantly" (so?). I don't care if I'm not quoting exactly... I just don't.

There is a satirical list from the university of Florida http://grove.ufl.edu/~ggsa/gaymarriage.html giving 12 reasons why same-sex marriages shouldn't occur (actually debunking them at the same time)... worth a quick look... for instance reason number one is "Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural. ". As far as I know it occurs pretty naturally in the natural world anyway... even leaving humans out of the argument.


yes well I'm no expert but it seems that it depends on where you are. In the UK a fella can rush off and "civil partnership" Elton John and expect the same rights as a "marriage" of any other sort (if you wanted to that is... the cad got married to a girl out here in Australia years ago and dumped her almost immediately treating it as a big joke... pity she wasn't in on it). In some countries it seems they allow the "union" but that's it pretty much it... you don't get any of the traditional rights of married couples (or de-facto couples which are just as recognised as married here in Aus). Then again you could do worse... don't bring it up in the Carribean or much of Africa if you want to remain uninjured.

Perhaps a benefit of calling it a "civil union" rather than a "marriage" is that it allows marriages to remain the province of "religion" completely seperate to the idea of a "union"... something like what bohoki said previously. Then again maybe you could wear a T-shirt saying "Marry them all... let god sort them out".

The aversion to same-sex unions is based on a conception of the traditional family mixed with a dose of puritanical homophobia. In terms of civil union v. marriage, I have to look at the history of American Jurisprudence. While civil unions with full legal rights may be acceptable to me personally, it isn't about me personally. Anything that appears to be "separate but equal" should be something we all scrutinize very closely.

JT

[One Eyed Cat]

ive never understood how it was possible for attempts to make same-sex marriage to fail. it is blatant discrimination, and (though im a little out of the loop) ive never heard a single reason for not allowing it that wasnt either complete bullshit or religious doctrine (oh wait, i already said that :P). what are some of the basises that have been used for shooting it down in the past?

Protection of traditional marriage. Fear of gay folks raising kids (despite they fact that they do and lack reasonablke legal remedies in custody disputes) + just plain ole homophobia imo.

JT

[helcyon]

Anything that appears to be "separate but equal" should be something we all scrutinize very closely.

good point... however unfortunately I may be very very old before the human race is unified in purpose and the world has healed itself with everyone treating each other decently and rowing the boat in the same direction.

With such a spectrum of opinion, which has at the extremes such wildly differing points of view, perhaps it is a worthwhile interim step at least to enshrine in law places for all reasonable (or at least mutually respectful) ways of living one's life. I think that this will lead to these "seperate but equal" places in law being legitimised/de-extremeified which may have the effect of bringing us all a little closer together and those who are passionate about bringing us even closer together can keep working from there. Those who aren't can jump in the lake.

Personally I don't think that any form of extremism that refuses to accept the existence of other points of view is very fair. I think that embracing pluralism is actually fairly enlightened, positive and beneficial

[One Eyed Cat]

good point... however unfortunately I may be very very old before the human race is unified in purpose and the world has healed itself with everyone treating each other decently and rowing the boat in the same direction.

With such a spectrum of opinion, which has at the extremes such wildly differing points of view, perhaps it is a worthwhile interim step at least to enshrine in law places for all reasonable (or at least mutually respectful) ways of living one's life. I think that this will lead to these "seperate but equal" places in law being legitimised/de-extremeified which may have the effect of bringing us all a little closer together and those who are passionate about bringing us even closer together can keep working from there. Those who aren't can jump in the lake.

Personally I don't think that any form of extremism that refuses to accept the existence of other points of view is very fair. I think that embracing pluralism is actually fairly enlightened, positive and beneficial

Well sure. Incremental steps are always preferable to none at all.

JT

[Xochitl]

It is funny that we glorify people who make a joke of marriage. I know Chris Rock went off about it. He is right though, when you have a country who watches a show with high ratings like "The Bachelor, The Bachelorette and who wants to marry a midget (no offense to little people, just quoting)" then we try to say who can & cannot get married it really makes us looks like we are full of shit. We say it is so sacred but then we run out & buy the movie of someone who has been married, like what 4+ times or something?

I love the arguments that the anti-gay marriage crowd gives...

What about the kids? Hmm...I dunno why is it we care more about 2 guys or 2 women getting married & having kids than convicted child molesters who not only marry, but have kids! What happened to the concern for those kids? Why don't they run out & pass laws against these people instead, as innocent kids are being brought into dangerous situations.

The other argument is what that marriage is for procreation? So should infertile people, impotent men, women in menopause or people who don't have kids surrender their wedding bands?

Seriously why is it we use children for this argument when we all know that what kids actually need are emotionally mature people. Why don't we heavily regulate "marriage" and only let people who respect that it ain't about a party & a pretty dress. It is about dealing with someone day-in & day-out. Someone who will sometimes make you crazy & piss you off and ultimately realizing that you do the same to them & still having a common decency at the end of the day for each other.

As for the religious aspect I agree completely with Amelia, do one with the civil part & one for the religious part if that does it for you. If your religion doesn't like it then they don't have to perform it. Yea the bible said it is wrong to be gay but who even wrote it & what version are you following anyway? Doesn't it also say it is okay to own slaves in that book too? I am not a scholar of it but that is the gist of what I got from it when thumbing through it in the past.

Let grown folks do what they want, besides gay people aren't a ton of the population anyway, I doubt the earth will crack in half tomorrow if they suddenly got to marry.

[Donald Rilea]

As for me, I'll say this much; the whole debate over gay marriage can be summarised, very roughly, who gets and who don't in regard to legal rights, insurance benefits, power of attorney in case of extreme illness or injury of one partner, custody of children, and all the rest of that good hoo-ha.

Hadn't known that some libertarian conservatives had taken the line that perhaps NO marriages of any sort should be recognised by the state, and, while I generally disagree with them on so many points, it ain't funny, have used that line of argument myself from time to time.

All of the counter-arguments against gay marriage are, to me, at least, just so much window dressing for fear of cultural change and a certain degree of bigotry, as well as a desire to hold onto whatever societal goodies there are, however dubious their benefits.

I advocate gay marriage, and similar legal and other protections and responsibilities for long-time un-married couples, regardless of sexual orientation, as a means of ensuring that morally, legally, economically and socially, right can be done by those in the relationship, just as for married heterosexuals, and there are forms of redress that one, or both partners, in the relationship can take, if need be.

Well, that's my spouting off. Next!!!!