[spikecomix]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050314/D88QVAD00.html

Judge says Cali Can't Ban Gay Marriage

$1:

Mar 14, 3:33 PM (ET)

By LISA LEFF

(AP) Renee Mangrum, right, and Mara Williams, who wed in February, rally in support of gay marriage in...
Full Image



SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.


(AP) William Collins, a Washington state assistant attorney general, argues in the Washington State...
Full Image


"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.

Two legal groups representing religious conservatives joined with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in defending the existing laws and had vowed to appeal if Kramer did not rule in their favor.

Lockyer's office has said it expects the matter eventually will have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

There is yet hope for the States.

[dknychic]

Haha. I was just gonna post that and you beat me to it

$1:

Around the country, Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its benefits must be extended to same-sex couples.

Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution, and on Feb. 4, a New York City judge ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by the city.

Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays from marrying violates their civil rights.

...it's definitely gonna be an uphill battle

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Hopefully everything goes all good. If anyone, the constitution should NOT be amended to ban the rights of a certain group. I think republican conservatives just don't understand gay people, or at least a good deal of people don't understand them, whether republican or democrat. Funny thing is Dick Cheney, who actually has a gay daughter, understands them and didn't agree with Bush on amending the constitution against Gay marriage.

[WarHawkster]

I thought gay marriage was unconstitutional because it violates the definition of marriage?

I don't get how it relates in anyway to gay rights, they can still get married just like anyone else can.

[Ontario_Born]

WarHawkster WarHawkster:

I thought gay marriage was unconstitutional because it violates the definition of marriage?

I don't get how it relates in anyway to gay rights, they can still get married just like anyone else can.

where are you living? In Canada and America gays cannot get a marriage license.

[WarHawkster]

Ontario_Born Ontario_Born:

WarHawkster WarHawkster:

I thought gay marriage was unconstitutional because it violates the definition of marriage?

I don't get how it relates in anyway to gay rights, they can still get married just like anyone else can.

where are you living? In Canada and America gays cannot get a marriage license.

Are you so sure? So a gay man can't marry a women? Or a gay women can't marry a man?

[Ontario_Born]

You are missing the point. Gay men don't want to marry straight women! They want to marry the men they love, and in many cases plan to spend their lives with!

[WarHawkster]

Ontario_Born Ontario_Born:

You are missing the point. Gay men don't want to marry straight women! They want to marry the men they love, and in many cases plan to spend their lives with!

Who said they would want to? The point I am making is that they can, and many do. Therefore there is no discrimination in not allowing gay marriage.

Also, gays don't need marriage to spend their lives together.

[spikecomix]

You're arguing semantics.

[WarHawkster]

spikecomix spikecomix:

You're arguing semantics.

Isn't that what law is all about?

[spikecomix]

Law is based on semantics because that's the only way that we can communicate effectively through time. The semantics, however, were based on ethics, morals, and the ideas the country was founded on.

[WarHawkster]

Do you think George Washington, or Sir John A. Macdonald would have approved of gay marriage?

[Ontario_Born]

$1:

Who said they would want to? The point I am making is that they can, and many do. Therefore there is no discrimination in not allowing gay marriage.

Also, gays don't need marriage to spend their lives together.

.........

[spikecomix]

I don't really know them personally and I'm not sure how homosexuality was regarded, if at all, back then. But they did say that everyone should have freedom to live the life the way they choose without being prosecuted. And I said "the ideas the country was founded on" not "how the people who wrote it would have thought".

[WarHawkster]

spikecomix spikecomix:

I don't really know them personally and I'm not sure how homosexuality was regarded, if at all, back then. But they did say that everyone should have freedom to live the life the way they choose without being prosecuted. And I said "the ideas the country was founded on" not "how the people who wrote it would have thought".

Are gays being persecuted?