"In papers filed four days after the legalized same-sex weddings began around the state, advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state's Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone - a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters. 'If enacted, (the November initiative) would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees,' said Stephen Bomse, lawyer for the groups."

via SF Gate

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

It's official. In a unanimous vote, the California Supreme Court has rejected a stay in marriage equality. Same-sex couples will now be able to begin getting married on June 17th.

Via SfGate:

The California Supreme Court refused today to put its ruling allowing same-sex marriages on hold until the issue goes before state voters in November, clearing the way for gay and lesbian weddings to begin June 17.

The justices' unanimous vote to deny a stay sought by two conservative organizations will allow thousands of same-sex couples, from California and other states, to marry before the Nov. 4 vote on a state constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling. If the amendment passes, the court will have to decide whether those marriage are valid.

In a separate vote today, the court denied reconsideration of its 4-3 decision May 15 that struck down the law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. That law was passed by the Legislature in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in a 2000 ballot measure.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Saying he would defend the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling, California Attorney General Jerry Brown urged the court to reject petitions by anti-gay groups who seek to delay the ruling until after the November elections:

"'This historic litigation is now concluded,' wrote Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Christopher E. Krueger in a brief filed with the high court. 'It is time for these proceedings to end.' In the brief, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown said he plans to enforce the court's May 15 ruling 'with no less vigor' than he previously sought to defend state laws that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. California's change of heart came as 10 other states, including Florida and Utah, filed a brief in support of a request by gay marriage opponents to delay the effective date of the court ruling. The offices of attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah protested that their states, which restrict marriage to unions of a man and a woman, would be inundated by litigation seeking to have them recognize same-sex nuptials in California."

The L.A. Times notes that "the mere filing of the petition could delay same-sex marriages until mid-July, or, at the latest, mid-August, court officials said.

via Towleroad and via LA Times

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

As a Californian for the first 18 years of my life I could not be more proud. Yesterday morning when the decision came out from the California Supreme Court, my mom and dad who still live there called me to say how happy they were about this landmark decision. It was pretty cute.

There are so many questions though surrounding the longevity of this decision considering there is a big possibility that anti-gay groups will have the signatures validated for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Here are a couple of tidbits I found out after researching the issue and how this court decision will play out.

Ruling goes into effect in 30 days, Governor Schwarzenegger who supports this court decision and opposes any constitutional ban, could take action and make the ruling effective sooner than that 30 day window.

Anti-gay groups could try to get a stay on this ruling until November, although I cannot see the court granting this motion seeing how bold their language in this ruling was.

If a constitutional amendment was to pass in November, it sounds as if the court could invalidate that as they have already ruled, that based on equal protection, same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry.

In the decision it is mentioned that if there was an initiative passed by the electorate, that said marriage could only for for those couples of the opposite sex, that it would fly in the face of what the CA supreme court is now a constitutional right that is open to everyone. Therefore the constitutional ban, if passed could be invalidated and found unconstitutional.

A poll by Survey USA has found that 46% or Californian's agree with the decision, 46% oppose it.

The above number is a huge jump down from the 62% of Californian's who voted for Prop 22 in 2000 that made a statutory change in California law defining marriage between a man and a woman.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

The cases were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

Because this is a state issue, the decision cannot be appealed to a higher level of court. This is the end of this saga. Come November though there is a good chance that a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot. The question then is whether or not this ruling will have an effect on that if it was to be appeal after November should the voters approve discrimination in the California Constitution.

The ruling can be read here.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

The question they will answer:
Does California's statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violate the California Constitution by denying equal protection of the laws on the basis of sexual orientation or sex, by infringing on the fundamental right to marry, or by denying the right to privacy and freedom of expression?

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Tomorrow at 10am, the California Supreme Court will make their ruling on whether California's marriage ban will be upheld or not.

Stay tuned.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Could it be? Shall we plan celebration parties already? Well not quite yet - but on the heels of Basic Rights Oregon appealing (to the Oregon Supreme Court) the language of two initiatives (IP 144 & IP 145) that would aim to repeal Oregon's newly enacted Domestic Partnership and Anti-Discrimination laws, and the possibility of the same thing happening to the third filed by anti-gays... they may be up shit creek.

Yesterday we talked about the group "Concerned Oregonians" who actually happens to be led by David Crowe who now resides in Tennessee. Make of that what you will. In any case - their desperate pleas for tens of thousands of dollars, even if answered, would still leave their anti-gay crusade in limbo. And funny enough currently it looks as though they are in debt.

Giving credit where credit is due.
Basic Rights Oregon has proven once again that it will relentlessly fight these initiative attempts to strip families of their basic rights as citizens of this state. Thanks BRO! (ech hem - donate here)

Credit should also be given to everyday Oregonians. Oregonian's don't see this as a Measure 36 - and rightly so. They see this simply for what it is, workplace protections against blatant discrimination and as I said above, the ability to legally provide and care for your family.

No victory dance yet folks.
Again, lets not get our hope up too high. But come July when anti-gay forces must turn in over 83,000 valid signatures to qualify and they can't do it - I'll be the first cracking open that bottle of bubbly.

Counting down the days.
Just think, each and every day that this bigoted attempt to strip Oregon families and individuals of their basic human rights is delayed, that's just another day these folks cannot gather signatures.

Related:
Appeal to Oregon Supreme Court Sparks Delay in Anti-Gay Plans

Labels: anti-discrimination, basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, oregon, supreme court

Basic Rights Oregon delivered today. They're taking the fight to the Oregon Supreme Court. Just Out is reporting that BRO may in fact be holding up the anti-gay initiatives by appealing to the OSC.

Via JustOut:

Basic Rights Oregon's legal representation - Margaret Olney, of Smith, Diamond and Olney, representing BRO's Jeana Frazzini and Frank Dixon - have just filed appeals to the state Supreme Court regarding Attorney General Hardy Myers' certified ballot titles for Initiatives 144 and 145, initiatives designed to repeal the Oregon Family Fairness Act and the Oregon Equality Act, respectively, according to documents obtained from the Secretary of State Elections Divisions Office.

According to state Elections Division compliance specialist Summer Davis, the Supreme Court could take "up to several months" to deliver an opinion on the appeals," depending on what other items "are on the Court's plate," though state law charges the Court to address the appeals "in an expeditious manner," although, she added: "Expeditious is not defined."

This could prove to be a major setback for Concerned Oregonians, the umbrella group organizing behind the repeal initiatives. In a recent email to supporters, the organization had said it was anticipating having petitions "printed and delivered to distribution sites hopefully by April 26th," though the current Supreme Court appeals could set their efforts back at least several weeks' time, if not longer - as petitions cannot be circulated until the Supreme Court's final judgment is delivered. Locations of potential petition distribution sites and self-described "collection goals" are posted on the Concerned Oregonians website.

Davis also said the Court was not required to take into consideration in its decision the final deadline by which the initiatives' sponsors were required to turn in their signatures: the deadline (82,769 valid signatures are required) is 5 pm on Thursday, July 3. “They’re under no obligation to issue their opinion or final judgment based on when signatures are due," Davis said.

And in other news Amy Ruiz at the PDX Mercury had this to say on the anti-gay group "Concerned Oregonians" lack of funding. It sure seems like they have bigger concerns than just stripping away the rights of families. They have no money. I have to question how far they will get if they were to get on the ballot. It's going to be a multi-million dollar campaign and they are begging and pleading for a mere $50k?

The campaign to repeal Oregon's new domestic partnership and anti-discrimination laws is in bigger trouble than I thought. For starters, though the groups involved only have until early July to gather up tens of thousands of signatures on each of the two initiatives, they haven't been cleared to start collecting signatures yet. Clock's ticking, as they say.

[...]

Yep, the sky is falling in Concerned Oregon. It takes a lot of cash to fund a statewide signature gathering campaign, and they've only collected $4,385.00. The Concerned Oregonians PAC-which, according to their filing, exists to oppose the land use Measure 49-has $517.06 in the bank as of this writing, but enough outstanding accounts payable to put them in the hole by $6,191.70.

Labels: anti-discrimination, basic rights oregon, domestic partnership, oregon, supreme court

Last week California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came out and came out strong against an anti-marriage equality initiative currently in the works in California. His strong opposition to the anti-marriage initiative surprised many of us as he vetoed two marriage equality bills within the last two years. Here's the video in case you missed it. More about a possible victory in the Supreme Court after the jump.



Today, there are rumors that a source close to the CA Supreme Court said something like this:

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.

Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment...

While little can be said about the credibility of the 'source' - it does give fair-minded Americans hope for equality for all. It's crazy to think back to my senior year of high school (in 2000) while living in the Bay Area and Prop. 22 passed.

Maybe there is hope. Stay tuned.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Attorneys representing same-sex couples in California, along with the human rights organizations Equality California and Our Family Coalition, have petitioned the California State Supreme Court to decide whether banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, the ACLU announced Monday.

An April 2005 ruling from the San Francisco Superior Court stated that preventing same-sex couples from marrying was in fact a violation of the state constitution, but the California court of appeals later overturned this in a 2-1 decision last month. This petition asks the court to reverse this ruling.

A wide variety of human and civil rights groups have filed amicus briefs supporting the petition, including the California NAACP, the California Council of Churches, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

The California Supreme Court has 60 days to rule on the petition and may extend that period by not more than an additional 30 days. (The Advocate)

Read the announcement from Equality California - click here.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court