San Francisco judge makes gay marriage decision final
A San Francisco trial judge has reaffirmed his decision to strike down California's marriage laws on grounds that they violate the constitutional right of gay residents to be treated equally and to marry whomever they choose. (obviously)
San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer's final ruling is substantially the same as the one he issued a month ago in a pair of cases brought by a dozen same-couples and the city of San Francisco.
In it, he reiterated that that laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman discriminate against same-sex couples on the basis of gender without a legitimate state interest for doing so (oh! is that that whole thing about separation of church and state that Christians seem to forget?). He expressly dismissed the arguments brought by California's attorney general that tradition provided sufficient grounds for such discrimination.
"To say that all men and all women are treated the same in that each may not marry someone of the same gender misses the point," Kramer wrote. "The marriage laws establish classifications (same gender vs. opposite gender" and discriminate on those gender-based classifications."
The decision orders the state registrar to issue gender-neutral marriage licenses, but is stayed automatically to give opponents time to appeal. Two groups that oppose same-sex marriage have said they intend to do just that. (of course - because there aren't more important things to do with their budgets like help out the needy or the 1000's of other things they could be doing with the millions of dollars these groups are spending across the US)
Meanwhile, legislative committees in Sacramento are scheduled to hold hearings on Tuesday on a pair of bills that would ask voters to decide whether the state's existing ban on gay marriage should be moved from the statutes Kramer overturned to the California Constitution.
The proposed constitutional amendments would also strip same-sex couples who register as domestic partners of the marriage-like rights lawmakers already have granted them.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, April 16, 2005 at 1:17 PM.
Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.
BySo it's great that a judge is going to trump the will of the California voters huh? And please enlighten me as to where you find "seperation of church and state" in the constitution. (Maybe while your there you can point out the parts that give people the right to sodomy and kill babies too, I just can't seem to find that paragraph) I'm sorry BHB but I just can't agree with the "gender neutral" agenda.
By
Oh Daniel - what would a day without you be? Actually probably a good day... but anyways. If it were the will of the Oregon voters to not let Latinos have the same rights as everyone else would you support that? I know you have a huge problem with people of different races - so maybe that was a bad question.
No need to be sorry about not agreeing with me. The Separation of Church and State principle is a part of our historical, legal and political/social heritage and preserves and protects our religious liberty. One of the beauties of this country is the religious freedom that we have in this country and that we were founded on. What makes your religion the one that should run our country? Why not Islam - I mean aren't there millions of Islamic people of faith living here?
About your comment on it not being in the Constitution...
Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. Separationists take this language from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he argued that the Constitution created a "wall of separation between church and state." But, as noted above, separationists have never taken the phrase as anything more than a handy (if historically significant) summary of the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Separationist scholar Leo Pfeffer, for example, notes:
"No magic attaches to a particular verbalization of an underlying concept. The concept at issue here is more accurately expressed in Madison's phrase 'separation between Religion and Government,' or in the popular maxim that 'religion is a private matter.'" (Church, State, and Freedom, pp. 118-119).
Second, accommodationists don't apply this argument consistently. Pfeffer, for example, observes that:
The phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles.
Daniel - Daniel - Daniel...Unlike many countries around the world, the United States mandates full religious freedom in its Constitution. No government official or politician can tell you which faith to follow. That very personal decision is made by each individual. Without this right to worship as we see fit, Americans would not be truly a free people.
Am I mistaken? Thanks anyways!
By
Wait wait wait. The 'right' to sodomy? Sodomy is not illegal.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003. Do you even understand that the scope of 'sodomy' reaches FAR beyond gays. Ask your straight friends about their sex life I'm sure some o them are bound to have had anal sex. Although what business is that of yours? Right - none of your business. Stay out of peoples bedrooms.
I cannot help but wonder why you comeback here day after day multiple times a day. You have this strange fascination with things gay. Any reason or are you "just doing God's work?
By
BHB, sometimes people want to come by and see if proponents of a particular position can back up their arguments, I do the same thing sometimes--and I must say you've done quite a nice job answering his questions.
I'm not sure he cared about the answer (I always do), but your reinforcement in comments only strengthens the positions laid out in the body of the original post. Consider that he did you a favor.
» Post a Comment