The San Francisco Chronicle writes this morning,
A San Francisco Superior Court judge declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional Monday, saying it violates the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice.''
More than a year after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom directed the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples at City Hall, Judge Richard Kramer gave legal vindication to Newsom's rationale: that the state's 28-year-old law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman is arbitrary and unfair.
Kramer wrote in his decision that, "No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners." He also cited in his ruling a precedent setting decision, when the state Supreme Court decided in 1948 to strike down California's law against interracial marriage.
Of course the gubernator (Arnold) is against this ruling saying, he does not believe in gay marriage and was hoping the court would uphold Proposition 22 (which says marriage is a union between a man and a women). The gubernator, among others, believe that domestic partnership is good enough. But judge Kramer compared this to the notion of "seperate but equal," which is tragically outdated.
There is still a significant portion of Californians that are against this.
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families (the folks reponsible for the Prop 22 measure), denounced Kramer's decision as "a crazy ruling by an arrogant San Francisco judge who apparently hates marriage and hates the voters.". Yes, clearly that is exactly what is going on here!
This is only the beginning of a long battle, but today is one of those days that I am glad to live in San Francisco! Plus it is 70 degrees and sunny...
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Does anyone have poling numbers for an anti-SSM amendment in California? IIRC, it's not a tough state to amend the constitution in, so if the polling goes the wrong way, a S.Ct. win will be pyrrhic.
The courts can break some ground on SSM, but cannot, in my view, get far ahead of the political branches -- or the backlash will wipe out the gains. Massachusetts marriages ought to get the public used to the idea, and show that the republic will not fall. California would be even better in this respect, since it's the most populous state. Any argument that could be made, including the economic ones, can be tested in this lab.
But then the majority of states will have to be won in political scrums -- the true-blue northeast first, and then others.
Kramer is hardly a wild-eyed liberal; he's a stodgy middle-of-the roader, Republican judge, appointed by Pete Wilson. The opinion is dull, cites everything and is legally unexciting. That's why the nitwits are going berserk. There's no wishy-washy language or creation of new rights they can point to, so they just shout louder and hope people believe them.