Obama and McCain on California's Gay Marriages

Log Cabin Republicans issued the following statement today about presidential hopeful Sen. McCain:

Late last week, the group pushing California’s anti-marriage constitutional amendment released an email from a McCain staffer saying the Senator backed the amendment. We now have confirmation that this represents the Senator’s view. “Unfortunately, his position on this amendment hurts gay and lesbian families,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon. “We obviously disagree with Senator McCain and do not believe he should have interjected himself into this state issue.”

“Supporting this amendment is inconsistent with Sen. McCain’s belief in federalism,” said Log Cabin President Patrick Sammon. “Backing California’s ban sends the wrong signal to the independents who will decide this election because it creates the impression that he’s pandering to social conservative leaders.”

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama announced his opposition to the California November ballot.

Obama is skating gingerly past his previous position on the issue. The Illinois senator said repeatedly that he believes marriage should only be between man and a woman. When the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May, Obama released a carefully nuanced statement saying he respected the court's decision, believed states should make their own decisions on marriage and "will continue to fight for civil unions as President."

But civil unions, gay activists have often argued, aren't the same as marriage, which would put Obama on the wrong side of what's increasingly seen as a civil rights issue.

Although California's proposed constitutional amendment affects only Californians, the battle is extending far beyond the state's borders.

More importantly, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says the effort to ban same-sex marriage "a waste of time." He said he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman but does not think that view should be forced on anyone else.

Freedom Rings in California

All same-sex couples and members of Marriage Equality USA have been celebrating a major victory in the State of California since yesterday evening, a victory activists and volunteers fought long and hard for: the civil right to marry the person they love.

Marriage Equality USA's president, Mr. David Janis-Kitzmiller and his partner Jeff had the honor of being the first Fairfield residents married in Solano County yesterday. (story)

In other California counties:

• "I'm really amazed and happy," said Jason Scott, leader of Marriage Equality USA's Fresno chapter. "It's something you might not expect in Fresno." (story)
• Monday night's marriage was the second one for Ryan James, 32, and Moe Perez, 39, leaders of the Alameda County chapter of Marriage Equality USA. They lined up for a license on Valentine's Day 2004 in San Francisco after Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed same-sex marriages in that city.
• Jamila Tharp and Michelle Hasting crossed the Canadian border two years ago to commit themselves to each other for the rest of their lives. Both sides of their families attended the Vancouver wedding ceremony, as did their daughter, who was the flower girl, “3, and very excited,” Tharp said. Tharp sits on the Marriage Equality USA board and is on a state advisory board for the Unitarian Universalists Legislative Ministry of California. The stay-at-home mother also sits on the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission. (story)

Congratulations to everyone in California!

"No one can rain in our parade. This is an absolutely fantastic day, it's a historic milestone for California as we move forward in the civil rights struggle for our generation." - Marriage Equality USA Media Director Molly McKay

Liberty Council tires to stop gay marriages in California (again)

An anti-gay group on Thursday made a last-ditch effort to stop gay marriage from becoming legal in California by asking a midlevel appeals court to temporarily prohibit county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Liberty Counsel, in a petition (view) with the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, argued that the wording of the California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriages allows the lower court to set the terms and schedule for implementing the decision.

Liberty Counsel argued that the high court's May 15 ruling put dozens of state laws addressing marriage into conflict and that the Legislature needs time to address those issues.

Barring any further legal intervention, gay couples will be able to start marrying in California at 5:01 p.m. Monday, when the Supreme Court's decision becomes final.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera called Liberty Counsel's filing "absurd."

"I am not aware of a process in American law that enables parties to effectively appeal a higher court ruling to a lower court," Herrera said.

The Liberty Council sent a blast email asking the following:

Will you help me flood Governor Schwarzenegger's office with phone calls? I want to literally shut down his switchboard right up until the 5pm Sunday deadline when the ruling permitting same-sex "marriage" will go into effect.

From Liberty Council's website, for $15.00, you can send faxes to California Governor Schwarzenegger, and California lawmakers. Senator Gil Gedillo of California angered Liberty Council by returning a fax to them with the words, "do not send" written across the page (view). Liberty Council responded by calling Senator Gedillo "arrogant." Great job Senator Gedillo!

Liberty Council claims to be a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family.

Did you catch that? Traditional? As I have said before and must say again, traditions' must sometimes be broken in favor of progress. Without progress, this nation could still be a colony that uses slave labor, filled with women who cannot hold public office or vote.

Gay Marriage foes divorced reality

LGBT Victory: California Supreme Court - Gay Marriage is Legal

In 4-3 decision authored by Chief Justice George, the California Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a constitutional right same-sex couples cannot be denied! This is a major victory for the LGBT movement!

Gay marriages will begin (again) in the State of California in 30 days!

California Supreme Court: If civil marriage were an institution whose only role was to serve the interests of society, it reasonably could be asserted that the state should have full authority to decide whether to establish or abolish the institution of marriage (and any similar institution, such as domestic partnership).

In recognizing, however, that the right to marry is a basic, constitutionally protected civil right — “a fundamental right of free men [and women]” (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714) —the governing California cases establish that this right embodies fundamental interests of an individual that are protected from abrogation or elimination by the state.41 Because our cases make clear that the right to marry is an integral component of an individual’s interest in personal autonomy protected by the privacy provision of article I, section 1, and of the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of article I, section 7, it is apparent under the California Constitution that the right to marry — like the right to establish a home and raise hildren — has independent substantive content, and cannot properly be understood as simply the right to enter into such a relationship if (but only if) the Legislature chooses to establish and retain it. (Accord, Poe v. Ullman (1961) 367 U.S. 497, 553 (dis. opn. of Harlan, J.) [“the intimacy of husband and wife is necessarily an essential and accepted feature of the institution of marriage, an institution which the State not only must allow, but which always and in every age it has fostered and protected” (italics added)].

One very important aspect of the substantive protection afforded by the California constitutional right to marry is, of course, an individual’s right to be free from undue governmental intrusion into (or interference with) integral features of this relationship — that is, the right of marital or familial privacy.

In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.

In sum, we conclude that statutes imposing differential treatment on the basis of sexual orientation should be viewed as constitutionally suspect under the California Constitution’s equal protection clause.

In striking down the ban, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, 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, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."