CA Supremes may have ended all GLBT discrimination today

[BR_Parkway]

They completely outlawed discrimination within the state based on Sexual Orientation. Consider their wording here from page 7 of the ruling:

Furthermore, 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. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.5

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but it certainly reads like whatever would be illegal to discriminate based on gender/race in the state (housing, jobs) would now apply to sexual orientation as well.

They certainly seemed to cover alot of bases in this decision.

[YDogg]

1. I hope to god you are correct

:thumbsup:

[Ian David]

2. Oh, let's see how happy you are when we start making gay people pay taxes!

Oh, wait.

Nevermind.

[noonwitch]

19. You gay people have been getting out of the marriage tax for too long!

I always tell my conservative friends that if straight people have to pay the marriage tax, so should gays.

I'm one of those people who really doesn't care who marries who, as long as polygamy (a nightmare for the IRS and the welfare system), children and animals are not one of the parties entering into the marriage. My church already performs non-legal weddings for gays, as soon as it is legal in Michigan, we'll offer legal weddings, too.

[galledgoblin]

3. maaaaybe

I believe it'll take the national Supreme Court upholding this decision to officially codify it, but I'm pretty sure we'll see that wording in future lawsuits.

[N4457S]

4. Yeah...

...I think the ending of discrimination in California part is true.

But nationwide? Not yet.

[BR_Parkway]

14. I did say within the State in the OP - I'm in NC and well aware that nationally

there's still a long way to go.

The nutjob who always introduces the amendment in NC did it as the first bill introduced this year, so we're gearing up for that battle again. Some of the legislative support that we've had in years past keeping it off the ballot is gone from retirement and a bribery conviction, so it's more likely to get on the ballot this year than it ever has.

Shame, since we're surrounded by states that have passes hugely bigoted amendments - SC, TN and VA - and it's been one of claims to fame.

[SoCalDem]

7. Yup.. this case is a sure bet to go to the Roberts/Alito/Scalia/Thomas/ court

They surely will uphold this ruling :eyes::sarcasm:

[galledgoblin]

10. it might, actually

I mean, Scalia is a total jackass who will vote against progressive causes no matter what, but the other three there, while certainly conservative morons, are at least willing to listen to logic and reason.

plus there are a few more justices much more willing to vote progressively, and on top of it all, we should consider ages. Scalia is 72! he doesn't look it, but assuming we get into the White House in this election, we may be able to shift the court back to the mainstream, and I don't expect this court case to reach the SC for several years.

[reggie the dog]

13. No jurisdiction in federal court

This is a case involving marriage. Marriage is a states right issue.

[Hosnon]

11. The Supreme Court of California held that the ban violated the California Constitution.

Unless the provision of the California Constitution under which the California Court held the statute unconstitutional is itself unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, then the likelihood that the Supreme Court of the United States can overrule this decision is extremely, extremely low.

[Tesha]

16. This decision isn't appealable to the US Supreme Court...

...although SCotUS will no doubt be asked someday to
rule on gay marriage as a *FEDERAL* issue.

Tesha

[KamaAina]

5. Wait a minute. Does that mean they get to vote?!

Oh noes!!! :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

6. I saw this early this morning and still can't believe it.

:toast:

[BlooInBloo]

8. Majority republican apointees, no less.

[msongs]

9. The christians are sponsoring an consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage AND more in CA

will also impact smug heterosexuals whose non-married rights will also be stripped.

so those heterosexuals non-married but in a relationship who are so anti gay will also lose big time.

Msongs

[Beregond2]

12. Maybe all legal support

for discrimination, but the law can only do so much.

[Rubiconski2009]

15. California + Gay Marriage + Election Year = GOP White House

what pro same-sex marriage liberals have done is shot the entire Democratic party in the face. Not in the foot…the face!

Two issues get conservatives to stampede their way to the voting booths: abortion and same-sex marriage. By legalizing same-sex marriage in an election year, for crying out loud…the California Supreme Court has virtually guaranteed that religious conservatives will be mobilized in a way that they haven’t been since they first heard the words “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”

Conservatives have felt disenfranchised since John McCain locked up the GOP nomination for President. They don’t feel like John McCain represents true conservative values. What they needed was something to rally behind; the California Supreme Court has provided it for them.

[ScottytheRadical]

17. Who exactly are they going to vote for? Conservative Santa Claus?

I don't really see the far-right coming to the polls in California this year simply over this. They don't like McCain, and they certainly aren't going to be encouraged by the Gubernator, who supports the right of the court to decide gay marriage (while apparently not holding the legislature in the same esteem, but that's another story).

2008 is also going to be a record year for Democratic turnout. We've seen that in the primaries, and in the number Republicans polled who say they're going to stay home.

You're being pessimistic and cynical over what is a *landmark* decision for gay rights. You're also being oddly circular - I'm assuming you're pro-Abortion and pro-same sex marriage, but you don't want them to be legalized because it might hurt the Democratic Party? What's the point of electing Democrats if we don't see any real gain in civil rights? Is our sole goal to see Democrats in office, or is it to see those Democrats bringing out real reforms for working people? And gaining the right of same-sex marriage is something that's going to BENEFIT thousands upon thousands of Californians.

[ScottytheRadical]

18. This is actually this first time a major court has protected sexual orientation as a suspect class..

So, I'm in a Women in the Law class right now, and we spent all class period talking about how awesome this decision is, so I thought I'd run over it real quick just so you can all get the implications:

Not only did the California Supreme Court rule that same-sex couples are entitled to marriage because marriage is a fundamental right and that domestic partnerships put into place a separate discrimitory system; they ALSO ruled that gays and lesbians constituted a "suspect class", which means that they're a traditional target of discrimination, and that any legislation targeted at gays and lesbians has to be reviewed under the "Strict Scrunity" standard of judical review, instead of the "rational basis" clause of review.

Which basically means that ALL discrimination against gays and lesbians is outlawed in California - not even direct discrimination, but also prejudical laws against them.

So if a city banned nightclubs from playing Madonna (hehe, I'm being stereotypical here) - the "rational basis" review would mandate that they needed a "rational reason" to ban Madonna. So they could say that Madonna's music devalues the morals and values of California's citizens. But under "strict scrunity", the city would need to prove a legitimate STATE INTEREST in banning Madonna and prove that it WASN'T passed it order to enforce prejudices against a certain group.

No major court has given this right to gays and lesbians before.

Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the basis of the "right to privacy" in the Constitution and drawn from Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, etc.

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health , which legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, relied on the completely different arguement of rational-basis review, in other words, they found that the state had no rational basis to deny marriage to same-sex couples.

But this decision by the California Supreme Court found invalidated California's domestic partnership because they provide unequal benefits and protections then marriage to same-sex couples, and that same-sex couples deserve equal benefits because sexual orientation is a "suspect class", IE protected class in the same way that race, religion, and ethnic orgin is. That's amazing, and a major step forward.