BREAKING: CA Supreme Court Affirms Marriage Equality!

News just hit!

Just minutes ago, the California Supreme Court published their opinion affirming equal protection under the law for it's gay and lesbian citizens, ruling that marriage between only a man and a woman is against the state constitution by infringing on the fundamental right to marry and denying the right to privacy.

The ruling is found here

There is likely another battle in November with a ballot measure against marriage-equality.  Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger has previously said, in a meeting with Log Cabin republicans last month, he's against the ballot measure.

Arnold's position has changed over the years.  First vetoing a bill in 2005, then again in 2007, both times saying the issue should follow the will of the people.  Now he says if the CA Supreme Court rule in favor, he will abide by the law.

A new, historic day in California.

•  Hooray! Proud to be a Californian once again!!!

  by Bindle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:15:06 AM PDT

•  Too cool !

  by indycam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:15:07 AM PDT

  •  Awesome! n/t

    by XStryker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:51 AM PDT

•  tips for popping the question this weekend!

  by perky mcjuggs on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:16:18 AM PDT

  •  huzzah

    and you may nave my favorite username ever!!!!

    by ETinKC on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:17:08 AM PDT

  •  Details ?

    Please ?
    Need a photographer ?

    by indycam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:17:24 AM PDT

  •  So you really going to ask someone to marry you

    this weekend?  if so good luck.

    by ETinKC on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:18:10 AM PDT

    •  YES

      We've been discussing it, and I thought I'd do it once we win this case.

      by perky mcjuggs on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:26:18 AM PDT

      •  Congrats!

        And we expect a wedding photo diary with Pictures

        by ETinKC on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:29:26 AM PDT

      •  Best of luck!

        Have champagne handy!

        by Marlyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 12:41:55 PM PDT

  •  Go for it!

    I wish our Supreme Court could do that....

    by Auntie Neo Kawn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:18:56 AM PDT

  •  Can we get wedding pics? n/t

    by JSCram3254 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:26:14 AM PDT

•  YES!!!

  by RandySF on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:16:22 AM PDT

•  as California goes

  so goes the nation...hopefully!!!

  by Castine on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:17:18 AM PDT

  •  prior to

    the purging of the Bird court, engineered by insurance companies and effected by bamboozled "tough on crime" voters, California's State Supreme Court was, in the area of protecting individual rights, a model for courts across the nation, including the US Supreme Court. It was not uncommon for law made in California to several years later become national law out of the US Supreme Court. But after the Bird purge, the California Supreme Court almost overnight became one of the very worst in the nation. Slowly, over the past 20 years, it has slogged towards at least respectability. This decision is evidence that, yes, the court is now again at least respectable, and, perhaps, prepared to again assume its old role of national trendsetter.

    Great news. Wish this diary would make the rec list.

    by blueness on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:47:30 AM PDT

•  Congratulations

  When I watch my 20something kids and their friends, the idea that a marriage could be illegal because of the gender seems as backward to them as the idea that a marriage could be illegal because of race.  It sure seems like time is marching pretty fast on this one.

  by Tod on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:18:08 AM PDT

  •  Not fast enough for my tastes

    But we'll take this victory and the ones that are sure to follow.

    by Bindle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:21:14 AM PDT

    •  Understood

      It's easier to say things are moving quickly if you're not the one who has to wait.

      My point is just that this looks really generational.  My generation may get tied up in knots about it, but my kids' generation does not.

      by Tod on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:43:41 AM PDT

      •  Yes.

        And, in all honesty, things have moved fast.  I suspect I'm from your generation, and I don't know anyone who saw this coming when we were kids.  Today's NYT has a ho-hum piece about a steamy gay kiss on "As the World Turns"....

        by Bindle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:51:55 AM PDT

•  Love the ironic Drudge headline

  CALIFORNIA COURT OVERTURNS GAY MARRIAGE BAN; BECOMES SECOND STATE TO LEGALIZE HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS... DEVELOPING...

  Coming from a gay Republican in gay South Beach Miami.

  by RandySF on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:18:27 AM PDT

  •  I don't get it .

    Please explain .

    by indycam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM PDT

    •  Matt Drudge is gay

      He's even open about it. Lives in South Beach. But he peddles the GOP's anti-gay propaganda all the time.

      by RandySF on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:21 AM PDT

      •  The quote above

        has homosexual in bold .
        Is that the anti-gay propaganda ?

        by indycam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:29:49 AM PDT

        •  Yes

          The only time it's used these days is in a negative context.

          by RandySF on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:35:21 AM PDT

          •  I did not

            know that .

            by indycam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:36:38 AM PDT

•  How Convenient

  Just in time to stir up the culture wars.

  Maybe we'll have another atheist file a suit challenging the pledge of allegiance and "Under God"

  I'm gay and atheist, and TIMING matters.

  by sd4david on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:19:09 AM PDT

  •  I think the timing's gonna be okay on this.

    It will motivate a lot of wingnuts, but it ain't 2000 anymore.

    by Bindle on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:23:48 AM PDT

    •  Its always time to

      do the right thing .

      by indycam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:24:58 AM PDT

    •  Besides, in 2000 people had the luxury ...

      ... of being able to let themselves be distracted by social concerns and indulging their bigotry. Now, eight years later, with the country mired in a war we can't win and an economy that is failing most working-class people, I doubt the Karl Rovian wedge issues will GOTV for Rethuglicans anymore.

      Besides, it's just the right thing to do on general principles. If we cannot win by supporting equal rights for everybody, we don't deserve to win.

      by philimus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:30:54 AM PDT

  •  Gift horse ?

    Mouth ?

    by indycam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:24:13 AM PDT

  •  Timing matters

    We get Obama in, we get THE FEDERAL Supreme Court to set the law of the land as gay marriages being constitutional.
    Don't be surprised when THIS Alito/Roberts/Scalia/Thomas Supreme Court overturns the CA decision.
    So lets focus on winning the war, not the battle.

    by sd4david on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:41:11 AM PDT

    •  They can't

      As I understand it, the California decision is based on the California Constitution.  The US Supremes don't get to review the decision.

      Voters, on the other hand ... but that's for another day.  Today is just a day to celebrate.

      by Darmok on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:52:05 AM PDT

  •  Scare tactics and fear mongering failing in 2008

    IN the 3 or special elections for congress, they've not been working.

    I'm encouraged that the gay wedge issue will meet a simliar fate.

    Plus, any state can pass any law they want. And many have (most of them banning same sex marriage)

    by BentLiberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:19:40 PM PDT

•  I love being a Californian...

  now me and my partner can marry and enjoy our full rights!

  by BlueStateWatchdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:19:29 AM PDT

  •  Go for it! n/t

    by XStryker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:27:59 AM PDT

•  It's not just Republicans that are going down...

  it's also their ideas!!!

  by David Kroning on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:21:13 AM PDT

  •  And that's the most important part! n/t

    by XStryker on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM PDT

•  Oh HELL YES!!!!~

  Thank you God, thank you thank you thank you!!!

  (And to all my friends who before today wanted to marry and couldn't because of the law....I'm looking forward to taking pictures at your nuptials and partying with you like it's.....well, 2008!!!)

  by shanikka on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM PDT

•  It's great. I almost shouted out loud when

  I read that. So exciting!

  by Highwind on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:23:20 AM PDT

•  Now the initiatite.

  The last one passed with 63% of the vote but was overturned. This one is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT and must pass with a bare majority.

  Good luck CA voters this might be a tough win!

  by MNPundit on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:11 AM PDT

  •  Right, and this means

    such a change would not be subject to state judicial review.

    by JoesGarage on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:34:39 AM PDT

•  Too bad Schwarzenegger can't run for President

  He is one of a few in his party who is not a neocon nutjob.  If were able he would have to run as an independent though, because the neocons are having enough trouble accepting McSame, much less a "librul" republican.

  Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a group of gay Republicans on Friday that an attempt to ban same-sex marriage by changing the state Constitution is a "total waste of time" and promised to oppose such an initiative if it qualifies for the state ballot.

  Backers of the measure criticized the governor as a liberal despite his Republican Party affiliation, while supporters of same-sex marriage applauded Schwarzenegger.

  by Tx LIberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:57 AM PDT

  •  I think the reason the governor

    is effective across the ideolgical divide is precisely because he cannot run for President. Since he has nowhere to go with respect to elected office--he has no interest in the Senate--he is freed from the need to calibrate his actions against a potential run in the future.

    by JoesGarage on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM PDT

    •  He's expressed interest in the Senate

      ...to run against Boxer.

      by BentLiberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:22:06 PM PDT

      •  I think he recognizes the Senate

        is a place ill-suited to his executive temperment. But I could be wrong.

        by JoesGarage on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:12:38 PM PDT

        •  yeah, thing is, he's got nowhere else to go

          politically

          Except of course, he can run for governor again after this term, because his first term wasn't a full one.

          by BentLiberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:53:01 PM PDT

  •  ECCH!

    he may not be as bad as Bush but he's pretty damn awful and has not been good for California. We'd already have same sex marriage if Ahnold hadn't vetoed legislation TWICE.

    by esquimaux on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:57:45 AM PDT

  •  Reality please. Arnold veto'd gay marriage twice.

    The last time was in October.

    It was an out and out pander to the rupublican wing nuts.

    by BentLiberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 02:21:31 PM PDT

    •  Hello?

      How about reading the entire post.

      He is one of a few in his party who is not a neocon nutjob.

      That's not exactly equating him with Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama.  Which you rather be stuck with if your only choices were Schwarzenegger, Bush or McSame.  Compared to Bush and McSame, Ahnold IS a flaming liberal!  That was my point.

      by Tx LIberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:08:04 PM PDT

      •  Any post that starts out...

        "Too bad Schwarzenegger can't run for President" is not good in my book.

        People are coronating Arnold as a hero in the same-sex marraige issue, which he surely is not. If you lived in California (or read my post) you would know he vetoed it. Twice.

        Now I'm not saying you're calling him a hero, but the way you started your post kind of sounded like it!

        My only choices are not Arnold, McCain, or Bush.  That's why I don't get your subject line, at all.

        by BentLiberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 08:40:11 PM PDT

        •  Whatever

          Ok, I understand you sensitivity to the subject line however that's all.  Please excuse me for not being such an "expert" on Ahnold as yourself.  If you've ever had to put up with a real right-winger for governor, it may make a little more sense where I was coming from so I guess it's all "relative".

          "To shore up his chances for reelection, Perry is following a model perfected by his mentor, President George W. Bush: fire up the Religious Right"...
          "Surrounded by a crowd of cheering religious conservatives and GOP faithful rounded up by Texas Republican Party officials, Perry affixed his signature to two measures, one requiring girls under the age of 18 to acquire parental consent before obtaining an abortion and another certifying a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage next year."

          Liberals in Texas are not quite as scarce as some people think.  It's just hard to be heard sometimes through the din of all the wingnut politicians here.

          by Tx LIberal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 07:57:23 AM PDT

          •  It's not that I'm some expert

            he's simply governor here and I know a bit about him.

            Arnold's really good at making himself appear liberal. He has to be or he has no chance at getting elected in CA.

            I can see how he looks good and probably he is better than alot of Repubs - I don't dispute that. You're right that he's prob. better than alot of repubs.

            by BentLiberal on Fri May 16, 2008 at 01:45:42 PM PDT

•  Great

  Now I can move to CA and find a sweetie, oops I apologize!

  by Kwaku Azar on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:58 AM PDT

•  Really proud to be a Californian today!! n/t

  by RidleyGriff on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:25:58 AM PDT

•  Sweet!!!!!!!

  by Hedwig on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:27:34 AM PDT

•  It's about damn time...

  And thank you to those groundbreakers who came before GLTB equality in marriage, with racial equality in marriage, the Loving couple of Virginia, god rest their souls.

  Civil rights is civil rights.

  by Casey Morris on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:36:00 AM PDT

•  Still reading the complete opinion but...

  it looks like California's supremes did something RIGHT and JUST today!

  Woo hoo! Congratulations to ALL Californians!

  ~Doc~

  by EquationDoc on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:37:22 AM PDT

  •  I'm reading the opinion too...

    they used very broad and widely sweeping language in the controlling opinion. It was a 4-3 decision as I expected. This looks very clear cut and we will see if it holds up in November

    by BlueStateWatchdog on Thu May 15, 2008 at 11:34:14 AM PDT

•  Great! Historic! And CNN completely fumbled it!

  At 10am their reporter was there reading the first line of the decision - which began that back in 2004 the SF Mayor's office acted prematurely in issuing marriage licenses - and reported it had been a negative decision for gays.  He even got a NYC analyst to tap-dance about it for a while.  Neither of them had the info.  They were too busy being on TV.

  He even said "and the rest is here, but I'd have to click..."!!! so instead he went with a ridiculous, lame, false, but detailed effort at a real-time summary.  "There is no recourse.  Even in liberal California.  This will set the tone.  Schwarznegger has ruled, twice vetoed it."  It's over for same sex marriage in California.

  BREAKING -- CNN utterly useless as a source of breaking news.  Cut out the middleman, increase your credibility, and find out what you need to know on line or at the Daily Kos.

  by Levity on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:41:28 AM PDT

•  That's

  one that should be downloaded and framed. For those who haven't, I highly recommend that you pull the opinion up and take a few minutes and read it.

  For my nephew long since taken by the AIDS virus. Finally.

  Thank You. To the Supreme Court of the State of California and the residents thereof.

  by RustyBrown on Thu May 15, 2008 at 10:44:04 AM PDT