Four years after first-in-the-nation gay marriages began being performed in Massachusetts, the state of California followed suit, in a divided ruling by that state's Supreme Court.
The California Supreme Court, in a 4-to-3 decision, overturned state laws barring same-sex marriage.
In 2000, Californians voted to reaffirm a 1977 state law defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. In 2004, on the heels of a decision by Massachusetts' highest court legalizing gay marriage, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom challenged the voter-approved ban on such unions, by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, before they were later ruled invalid.
The California Supreme Court, in its final disposition of the matter in mid-May, said the state's constitution "guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship." The court's ruling enabled gay couples to begin marrying in California on June 17th.
The justices who voted in the minority issued a strong dissenting opinion.
Associate Justice Marvin Baxter wrote, "A bare majority of this court, not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves. Undeterred by the strong weight of state and federal law and authority, the majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will."
A number of pro-family and conservative groups, likewise, condemned the decision.
American Center for Law and Justice Chief Counsel, Jay Sekulow, stated, "This flawed decision represents another example of an activist judiciary that overreached by taking this issue out of the hands of the state legislature where it belongs. We're disappointed that the California high court failed to uphold what an overwhelming majority of California voters clearly understand–that the institution of marriage is limited to one man, one woman. This decision guarantees one thing: the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage once again moves to the forefront, re-energizing the public and legal debate nationwide."
Matt Barber, Concerned Women for America's Policy Director for Cultural Issues, said, "It's absurd to suggest that the framers of the California state constitution could have ever imagined there would be a day when so-called ‘same-sex marriage' would even be conceptualized, much less seriously considered. So-called ‘same-sex' marriage is counterfeit marriage. Marriage is, and has always been, between a man and a woman. We know that it's in the best interest of children to be raised with a mother and a father. To use children as guinea pigs in radical San Francisco-style social experimentation is deplorable.
The majority of Americans recognize the fact that legitimate marriage and family are cornerstones of a healthy society. Reasonable people have had enough and are refusing to allow radical extremists to redefine marriage and family into oblivion. So-called ‘same-sex marriage' is a ridiculous and oxymoronic notion that has been forced into popular lexicon by homosexual activists and their extremist left-wing allies," Barber said.
American Values President, Gary Bauer, noted, "Every society, every major religion, every great nation has enshrined the union of man and woman as vital, and even sacred. To throw that away on the whim of four judges is not only undemocratic; it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the beauty and benefit of marriage to all of us. It may be a union under fire, and its reputation may be frayed, but it's worth saving."
Gay rights groups and their supporters hailed the California decision.
Human Rights Campaign President, Joe Solomonese, said, "The California Supreme Court has made clear that same-sex couples in committed relationships and their families deserve the same level of respect afforded to opposite-sex couples. The court did its job by ensuring that the state constitution provides the same rights and protections for everyone. This is a decision that strengthens California families."
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Acting Executive Director, Rea Carey, said, "This is an extraordinary victory for Californians and all Americans who hold fairness and opportunity as fundamental American values. The high court's decision comes down to this simple, yet profound, principle: All Californians should be treated equally under the law."
People For the American Way Foundation President, Kathryn Kolbert, said, "No one should be excluded from marriage simply because they are gay or lesbian. Giving all people the freedom to marry is the American way. Marriage is about committed couples who want to do right by their neighbors and by their communities."
In anticipation of such a decision by the California Supreme Court, pro-family groups had launched a petition drive to place a constitutional amendment in that state on the November general election ballot. Some one-point-one million signatures were submitted, more than the 694 thousand needed. Last month, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified the proposed amendment.
Ron Prentice, chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, said, "Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four Supreme Court judges who want to redefine marriage for our entire society. In November, the people will have an opportunity to overrule the court's decision by passing a constitutional amendment–and California's voters must respond by voting." Campaign for Children and Families President, Randy Thomasson, said, "The voters are witnessing unprecedented judicial arrogance. This will only make Californians more angry and more determined to vote to overrule the court, and pass the California Marriage Amendment this November. Ironically, the judges are pouring fuel on the fire of voter outrage."
The California decision prompted Georgia Republican Representative Paul Broun to introduce the Marriage Protection Amendment of 2008. (H.J. RES. 89) This amendment to the U.S. Constitution would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman.
For years, the Alliance for Marriage Foundation has been the driving force behind the U.S. amendment.
Foundation Founder and President, Matt Daniels, said, "California is now ground-zero in the battle to protect marriage, and the fight in California must now be joined in the Congress.
Given the continuous attacks upon marriage in courts across the country, the Marriage Protection Amendment is clearly the only hope for the American people to determine the future of marriage under our laws. Americans want our laws to send a positive message to children about marriage, family and their future," Daniels stated.
The day before the California Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision, New York Democratic Governor David Paterson issued a directive to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside of his state. Gay marriages are unconstitutional in New York.
Paterson, a Roman Catholic, defended the action, saying his failure to do so would have left the state open to lawsuits claiming the state deprived same-sex couples of civil rights enjoyed in other states and countries.
That drew a sharp rebuke from New York State Catholic Conference Executive Director, Richard Barnes, who said, "No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose."
Family Research Council President, Tony Perkins, noted, "It's outrageous that Governor Paterson would trample the democratic process, but also, circumvent New York's highest court, which, just two years ago, upheld state laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Alliance Defense Fund was quick to file suit against Paterson.
ADF Senior Legal Counsel, Brian Raum, said, "The governor should respect New York's marriage laws over the laws of foreign jurisdictions. The governor has no authority to issue directives which conflict with New York's public policy. His actions are an assault on the democratic process.
The future of marriage should be decided by the legislature, not executives who take matters into their own hands. New Yorkers have a fundamental right to set marriage policy through the legislative process, but the governor has ordered a radical redefinition of marriage without the consent of the governed. Ignoring the democratic process does not help the government in its duty to promote and encourage strong families," Raum said.
Also last month, Norway became the latest country to approve same-sex marriages.
The Norwegian parliament, by a more than two-to-one margin, approved legislation giving gay couples the right to marry and adopt children on an equal basis with heterosexual couples, beginning in 2009.
Norway already allows homosexuals and lesbians to enter into civil unions. However, gay rights groups had argued that the law does not go far enough in granting equal rights.
The measure was opposed by the country's Roman Catholic Church and the Christian Council of Norway.
Norway joins Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, South Africa and three Canadian provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec) in legalizing same-sex marriage.
[Home] [Introducing UNI] [News Coverage] [Features Page][Publications]