NO H8

Today, Justice Walker (appointed by Republican Ronald Reagan) struck down Proposition 8 banning gay marriage in the state.

I am overjoyed.

However, I am also curious.

After reading in the article that the defense lawyers said that "gay marriage was an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject," I am disinclined to agree. I cannot understand how that makes sense.

This country was founded by people who felt that the general population was too stupid to make proper decisions, which is why we have the Electoral College during general elections.

"an experiment with unknown social consequences that should be left to voters to accept or reject." That sounds like something MTV would put out in a press release about some new show. Everything we do has unknown social consequences, but not everything we do should be left for voters to decide.

In the beginning of the public school system (by 1918 - all children were required to complete elementary school), no one had any idea what kind of social consequences it would have. However, it was not voted upon, at least by the voters. (It may have been voted on by Congress, again, the people we elect because we are too stupid to make proper decisions.) We now know that giving children an education (as opposed to them working in coal mines, for example) is for the betterment of society, but no one knew that then.

Divorce is also an experiment with unknown social consequences, but no one has ever voted on whether or not to outlaw divorce. We now know that divorce can cause undue strain and stress on children and on professional lives, but no one has ever voted on it.

The creation of LSD was an experiment with unknown social consequences (created by Swiss chemist Dr. Albert Hofmann in 1938) and we all KNOW the negative effects that could have had (or potentially has had, depending on your way of viewing things) and again, no one was able to vote on it.

As society changes, so too should our laws. Our laws have caught up with (or are trying to at least) the times in regard to the internet. Things that could not have been prosecuted a few years ago are now on the books so that the law catches up with technology.

Science is also racing to catch up with the times. We have newer types of cars to try to deal with exhaust and emissions, newer types of insulation and power sources for homes to be able to use what naturally comes to us as well as new medicines aimed at making us better without the harmful effects of some chemicals.

Why can't this be afforded to people as well?

#6

New Hampshire!

Thank you Maine!

Thank you Maine!!

New York

If this gets through, it will make the United States 10% of the way to legalizing same-sex marriage across the board.

Incredible!

Thank you Vermont

Vermont is now cooler than California. So is Iowa, but we already knew that!

THANK YOU IOWA!!

Thank you.

It was UNANIMOUS!!!

Thank the heavenly creature that people rarely refer to

California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

The last time California voters were asked to express their views on gay marriage at the ballot box was in 2000, the year after the Legislature enacted the first of a series of laws awarding spousal rights to domestic partners.

Proposition 22, which strengthened the state's 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law with the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," passed with 61 percent of the vote.

The Supreme Court struck down both statutes with its sweeping opinion Thursday.

Lawyers for the gay couples had asked the court to overturn the laws as an unconstitutional civil rights violation that domestic partnerships cannot repair. A trial court judge in San Francisco agreed with gay rights advocates and voided the state's marriage laws in April 2005. A midlevel appeals court overturned his decision in October 2006.