Heads up: CA gay marriage decision tomorrow

10:00 a.m. Pacific time.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...

This case includes the following issue: 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?

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/...

If it rules in favor of the plaintiffs, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gays and lesbians can legally wed.

http://www.sfgate.com/...

Hard to tell from the oral argument in March, but the justices appeared to be leaning in favor.  If so, prepare for the political fallout.

•  I've heard that the justices

  are leaning against.  They were mostly Repub appointd Justices after all.

  by IhateBush on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:12 PM PDT

  •  Arnold has made a point of appointing more

    Dems than Repubs.

    I don't know where you get the idea that they're leaning against because their arguments clearly showed they were leaning for.

    by Shane Hensinger on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM PDT

    •  I don't think the arguments

      "clearly" showed anything.  My bet is 4-3 in favor of status quo.

      by Drgrishka1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:37:36 PM PDT

  •  Damn, I hope that isn't true & they will surprise

    us. In the name of justice, the day has come for the California Supreme Court to honor their state's own Constitution instead of bigotry by referendum.

    I don't even have a dog in this fight other than that this is a matter of basic civil rights and fairness, which means that we ALL have a dog in this fight.

    Please let them rule in favor of the plaintiffs. It's long past time to stop making it a crime for two people to love each other.

    by philimus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:50 PM PDT

•  Go California

  You know the rest of us out here look to you to set the standards in most things. . . .well, it seems like it any way.

  Good Luck and I hope people vote in numbers for equity.

  by Shirl In Idaho on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:58:26 PM PDT

•  Doesn't California have a rather broad

  equal protection clause in it's state constitution?  If so, I think chances are the ban gets overturned (but don't necessarily see it as a ruling that would persuade federal judges)

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:00:54 PM PDT

  •  It appears to

    Tough to get around, if the justices are so inclined.

    by Paleo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:08:18 PM PDT

  •  Yep

    And it has been used with success in employment discrimination cases in the past, tied into a violation of public policy argument.

    Fingers crossed.

    by not a cent on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:12:17 PM PDT

•  i hope it's a yes for Gay Marriage

  and, no, getting people into voting R because men kiss each other will not work this year

  by Mr Bula on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:01:12 PM PDT

  •  Here's hoping.

    It seems to work pretty damned well everywhere else.  AZ managed to stop it, but the wingnuts are bringing it up again, and will continue until someone makes them stop.

    by jarhead5536 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM PDT

  •  Because achieving the same result

    at the ballot box is a hassle?!

    by Drgrishka1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:38:32 PM PDT

•  "Marriage Equality"

  There's no such thing as "gay marriage".

  by ortcutt on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:03:27 PM PDT

  •  you got that right n/t

    by lcork on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:08:51 PM PDT

    •  I actually use term

      "gay-married" to describe myself...

      by California Nurses Shum on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM PDT

  •  I never thought I would

    recommend an entry by you. But here it goes

    by The Silent Consensus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM PDT

•  Join Spain on the list, California.

  If "Catholic" Spain can do it, California can too! (You should hear the Bishops and Papal nunces fume.)

  by Virginian in Spain on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM PDT

  •  Or South Africa

    for that matter.

    by Jonathanonymous on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:28:19 PM PDT

•  I fullly expect this to ultimately be up to

  the citizens of CA as a ballot initiative of some sort.  Constitutional amendment?

  by browneyes on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:30 PM PDT

  •  There's an initiative on the ballot this year,

    I believe. Ahnold is opposed and will campaign against it.

    http://www.gay.com/...

    by smellybeast on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:19:27 PM PDT

    •  Thank you for the link.

      My hubby and I have a home in the 'burbs of Vegas, but spend most time when his band is off the road in east TN so our little boy can be near g-parents.  We don't get a lot of CA news here!

      We have sooooo many friends that are gay and lesbian living in CA and here in TN.  We're keeping our fingers crossed for them.

      by browneyes on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:24:05 PM PDT

•  Keeping my fingers crossed for

  a lot of friends.

  by shayera on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:47 PM PDT

•  I hope it's a favorable decision

  Especially since I plan on running off to CA anyway ...

  by arainsb123 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:11:30 PM PDT

  •  Me too

    and I live in MA now, but can't get married because my partner is not a citizen and would get the full wrath of ICE (and no benefit whatsoever) if we tied the knot.

    Gay Immigrant Interracial Marriage is a tough topic right now, but we are hoping with a more solidly Dem congress and Obama in the White House we might get DOMA orverturned, or at least get a law that give gay couples the ability to sponser each other.

    by Jonathanonymous on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:20:50 PM PDT

•  Oh my gosh I'm so nervous

  My partner and I discussed getting engaged almost immediately after the decision, if it comes out in favor of marriage equality.

  I can't believe that as a 50-year old gay man, I might be engaged this weekend.  We're preparing our announcement to family and friends but we didn't expect the ruling until later in May.

  Gosh I hope it happens.  My 25-year old nephew just got engaged and I'd like to add mine to his.

  Then we work to keep it legal this November, should the court side in favor of equality.

  by perky mcjuggs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM PDT

  •  Now I'm hoping even harder for a

    positive outcome.
    Good luck to you.

    by shayera on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:25:09 PM PDT

•  I heard Arnold was against it but now is for it

  I'm not sure if that's true or not.

  Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman. Unfortunately my programming prohibits this because I...Am...A Machine

  by Johnnythebandit on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:16:00 PM PDT

  •  He said he won't campaign for the ballot measure

    A ballot measure apparently will make it up to voters this November.  I understand backers (the anti-marriage equality folks) submitted enough signatures.

    Arnold told the Log Cabin republicans he won't campaign for the ballot measure, saying there are too many other things that are more important.

    by perky mcjuggs on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:20:39 PM PDT

    •  Not yet final

      No one knows if there are enough signatures yet.  Yes, they submitted 1.1M, but the signatures have to be verified.

      It's likely going to the voters, but it hasn't been announced yet.

      by Darmok on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:12:42 AM PDT

  •  Yup, he has opposed efforts by the legislature

    to legalize gay marriage. But there's a ballot initiative coming up that would make it ILLEGAL and he is opposing the initiative.

    http://www.gay.com/...

    by smellybeast on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:21:39 PM PDT

    •  That's because the Legislature

      is not legally permitted to overturn voter-passed initiatives without submitting them to voters.

      by Drgrishka1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:39:59 PM PDT

  •  Arnold is privately cool with it

    but publicly against it, for political reasons.  He's a coward.

    by Skaje on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:26:04 PM PDT

    •  Arnold has publically said he is not opposed to

      gay marriage. He's said that openly and many, many times.

      Say what you want about Arnold but he's signed more pro-gay legislation than any other governor in CA history, Republican OR Democrat.

      by Shane Hensinger on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:39:08 PM PDT

•  Tomorrow at 10AM PDT

  is when the decision will be announced.  My prediction is that the Court will rule that there needs to be equal protection and will throw it back to the legislature who have already passed a marriage equality bill in the last two sessions.  The Governator vetoed it both times.

  Most likely there will be a ballot iniative in November to amend the constitution barring marriage.  A well funded group backed by the Catholic church paid for signature gatherers.  At least Arnold has said he will oppose such a ballot measure.

  We are planning for celebrations tomorrow and hoping the Court don't rule against us.  I know of several couples who are ready to tie the knot and will be first in line!

  by GayDemInRedDistrict on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:17:31 PM PDT

  •  He also said

    that he would accept the decision of the courts.

    Who knows if he will follow through.

    by Jonathanonymous on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:22:07 PM PDT

    •  I have a Republican friend

      who was standing 10 feet from Arnold at the Log Cabin Convention when he made his announcement.  His impression is that he will not only not campaign for the ballot iniative, but that he will oppose it.  

      I have worked with this friend on the Let California Ring campaign and his insights into the Republican side of this issue are very interesting.  He has worked closely with the Governor, Maria and their staff on LGBT issues.  It seems that Arnold is more sympathetic to marriage equality than Maria is.

      Arnold wants to run for Senate when Feinstein retires.  He needs to work the entire spectrum to win that election.  If the Court rules as I suspect they will, he will have a lot of pressure to sign the law this time.

      We just need to fend off the constitutional ammendment in November or the whole issue becomes moot.  It would then be up to the US Supreme Court and we know how they would rule!

      by GayDemInRedDistrict on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:40:14 PM PDT

      •  You think he'll run against Boxer or wait for

        Feinstein to go?

        by Shane Hensinger on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:44:00 PM PDT

        •  The race will be for the open seat when Feinstein

          retires.  She is a moderate anyway.  

          by GayDemInRedDistrict on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM PDT

•  (Possibly) Good News, But ...

  ... I'm still waiting for the moment when a state legislature passes a bill allowing same-sex marriage and that bill is signed by the Governor.  Hell, I'd even settle for an overridden veto!  I'd just like to see it move out of the courts and be done, for once, just because it should be done and not simply by court mandate (which is certainly better than nothing).

  And we're not there yet.

  Happily, we are well past the point where judicial rulings (at least at the state level) would provoke a federal marriage amendment.

  by Collideascope on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:38:10 PM PDT

•  Republicans Will Have The Decision Delayed Until

  October 08.  This way they can fuel the hate and stir the fear in California at the proper time.  California's beloved Darrel Issa can put more of his millions into his Republican hate campaign.  Afterall, we all know that California's home values have recently dropped as a result of gays and lesbians trying to marry. This is in addition to causing buildings in NYC to be attacked by terrorists and hurricanes destroying New Orleans.  

  by kerplunk on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:44:44 PM PDT

•  I saw part of that argument on C-SPAN

  and I was appalled by the quality of the oral argument
  from our side.  At one point, one justice actually asked
  one lawyer for our side what the constitutional basis was
  for our claim that we had a right to get married!
  He could not even SAY !!  I wanted to jump through the
  screen (and across 3 time zones) and say
  It's the 14th amendment, stupid!
  My point is, even though they were leaning toward,
  I have first-hand evidence that the argument may have
  been conducted badly enough to have blown it.

  by ge0rge on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:46:48 PM PDT

  •  I respectfully disagree

    I viewed the entire hearing on the Court's website and the lead attorney for the City and County of San Francisco was outstanding.  She stated her arguments clearly and forcefully.  She responded to all of the questions put forth by the Justices without hesitation and fully supported her arguments.  

    The attorneys who could not clearly answer questions were those for the Prop 22 organization and the religious organization.  They looked like fools.  

    This case will not be won or lost on the oral arguments.  The Justices had made their own deicsions before they ever heard them.

    by GayDemInRedDistrict on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:09:59 PM PDT

    •  Well I am certainly glad that the 1 lawyer I saw

      was not typical.

      by ge0rge on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:33:52 AM PDT

  •  Ultimately

    it comes down to this: If marriage is a religious function, as the opponents claim, then government has no business being involved in it (Establishment Clause) and we need to replace it with civil unions for everyone. If it's not a religious function but a civil function, then the government is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender (Equal protection clause)

    by The Silent Consensus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:57:12 PM PDT