California appellate court upholds ban on same-sex marriage

[keepCAblue]

We've been waiting 3 months for this decision. This is the appeal the fundies filed in response to the
2005 Superior Court finding that barring same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional. Below is thethe email I received this evening from Equality California. At the bottom is a link to the actual court document containing both the majority decision and the stronly worded dissent from Justice Anthony Kline.

In a 2-1 decision that will be appealed to the California Supreme Court, a divided panel of the California Court of Appeal ruled today that California may continue to bar same-sex couples from marriage.

In a strong dissent, Justice Anthony Kline wrote, "the inescapable effect of the analysis the majority adopts is to diminish the humanity of the lesbians and gay men whose rights are defeated. The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."

"Today's decision was disappointing. We know that hundreds of thousands of lesbian and gay people were hoping the court would stand up for the dignity and equality of their relationships," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who argued before the Court. "We believe Judge Kramer got it right when he ruled that excluding same-sex couples from marriage violates the constitutional promise of equality. We are optimistic that the California Supreme Court will affirm the trial court's historic ruling and strike down one of the last remaining laws to discriminate against an entire group of people in this state."

In April 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of gender and violates the fundamental right to marry. The ruling today by the Court of Appeal will be appealed to the California Supreme Court by plaintiffs and the City and County of San Francisco who argued a companion case challenging the exclusion of lesbian and gay couples from the ability to marry.

"California has always been a leader in recognizing that all people should be treated fairly," said Geoff Kors, Executive Director of Equality California. "While we are disappointed that the Court of Appeal ruled against our families, we are confident that we will prevail and that the California dream will be available to all."

In 2005, the California Legislature enacted AB 849, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act sponsored by Equality California, which would have ensured equal treatment under the law by allowing same-sex couples to marry in California. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill.

"We know that history is on our side," said Jeanne Rizzo and Pali Cooper, two of the plaintiffs in Woo v. California, who have been together more than 16 years. "We are disappointed by the court's ruling, but we have faith that the law will not continue to treat us as outsiders. We simply want the same legal protections as other Californians."

"This decision is a pit-stop on the long road to justice, not a detour," said Jennifer C. Pizer, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal based in its Western Regional Office. "We believe that the Supreme Court will find as the trial court did that there is no room in California for a 'separate but equal' status that serves only to stigmatize same-sex couples and their children."

"Today's decision was disappointing, especially for the thousands of same-sex couples throughout the state who are relying on the courts to do right by their families," said Tamara Lange, a Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU. "But we're hopeful that we will be able to show the California Supreme Court that same-sex couples make lasting commitments just like different-sex couples and their families shouldn't be denied the dignity and protections that the state provides through marriage."

More than 250 religious and civil rights organizations, including the California NAACP, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, California Council of Churches, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, and National Black Justice Coalition, filed amicus briefs supporting marriage equality for same-sex couples.

NCLR's co-counsel in Woo v. California are Heller Ehrman LLP, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the Law Office of David C. Codell.

Read the Decision from the California Court of Appeal (.pdf)

[Erika]

1. The day will come when same sex couples refuse to pay

taxes because they haven't the same representaion rights under the government. The narrowing of constitutional rights will come with a price tag.

[keepCAblue]

3. Many of us have already considered not paying taxes

Yet fear imprisonment and lack of any legal support should we refuse to pay taxes.

BTW, I feel the same way about the Iraq occupation--I don't want my tax dollars paying for the death and destruction of innocent human beings. Why isn't everyone in this country, both gay and straight, refusing to pay taxes? We'd have Washington by the balls if enough people did just that.

[ruiner4u]

2. I have a question? Since im gay and cant marry...

Why do I have to pay taxes? I cant get the same "pursuit of happiness" b/s, so why? Any lawyers out there?

[LeftCoast]

4. I'm actually relieved to hear this!

Earlier I only read the headline and thought that the decision had been handed down from the CA supreme court. I couldn't face reading the article.

Thanks for posting this!

:hi:

[ninkasi]

5. There is no rational basis for such a ruling

The issue, in my opinion, is whether sexual identification has to result in creating an underclass of people who are required to pay taxes to support the same government which refuses to recognize that everybody is entitled to equal rights. I can't express myself a fraction as well as some of our more eloquent DUers, but I trust that my deepest beliefs are clear to all.

There must be some benefit to society as a whole in order to pass laws forbidding certain behaviors, or acts. Recognizing that equal rights include the rights of every member of society to conduct their private affairs as just that, private, is of utmost importance.

Whether a couple can marry or not is something that nobody but the consenting adults affected should decide. Surely even the most right-wing fanatic does not expect that barring marriage will also bar couples from living together, loving each other, and behaving in every sense that is important, exactly like a straight married couple.

The Bible Belt also has a pretty high divorce rate, if I remember correctly, but that is apparently not worth whipping the true believers into a frenzy over. Before I go to bed (much too late), my only other comment is that until every citizen is able to partake of true equality, our country has no business preaching morals to anyone, citizen or foreign. There is no difference, from what I can see, between the things straight Americans and gay Americans want. The gay community is only asking for the same rights enjoyed by everybody else, and that is the only fair and just thing to do.

I can't understand the right-wingers, I can't put myself into their mindset, and use their reasoning to arrive at certain conclusions. I will never truly understand why they hate, and fear the GLBT community so much. I have spent a total of 41 years of my life married, the last 21 of them to my second husband, the first 40 to my first. I was born during WWII, and grew up in the late 40s and early 50s, and if anyone should have become narrow minded, it's people like me. Oh...I also live in Texas.

When sixty-something women can see the harm, and wrong, in discrimination toward a sizable segment of our society, I would say that it's time to grow up, and move on. We should be much more enlightened than we appear to be. To my brothers and sisters who live with the burden of this irrational distaste and disapproval, all I can say is that I'm on your side.

[sui generis]

6. separate but equal strikes again

there's plenty of room in the back, therefore you aren't being discriminated against.

Jesus, what in the hell are those idiots thinking? And by idiots, I mean our own litigators. Little steps???

This is where "little steps" gets you. In the back of the bus.