Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

登入

记住我

初到 Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement
Highlights

More About Us

新闻&特写

« 较新的 | 较旧的 »
27 May 2009

California Supreme Court upholds ban on same-sex marriage

The California Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 but also ruled that the the marriages of an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who wed in the five-month window before the ban took effect will remain valid.

Gay and lesbian couples in America's most populous state will continue to be barred from tying the knot as the California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 on May 26 to uphold Proposition 8 that passed in November last year. The ballot measure amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California."

Outside the California Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 26

The Los Angeles Times reported that although the court ruled overwhelmingly on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.

The San Francisco Chronicle noted in a May 26 editorial that the latest ruling “focused on more technical legal issues, namely whether Proposition 8 represented an 'amendment' to the constitution (permissible through the initiative process) or a more substantial ‘revision’ that could be put to voters only through a constitutional convention or a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.”

“Curiously, the conclusion that Prop. 8 amounted to a mere 'amendment' - and not a change in the basic nature of the constitution - required the justices to downplay the importance of marriage.”

Chief Justice Ronald George further suggested that domestic partnerships and anti-discrimination laws offer same-sex couples the "same substantive core benefits" as their heterosexual counterparts. The justices acknowledged that Prop. 8 does "diminish the rights of same-sex couples," but not so drastically that it would produce a "sweeping constitutional effect."

According to the Times, the court also declined to determine whether same-sex marriages performed outside of California - and not formally recognised by the state prior to the election - would be legal in California.

Five US states - Vermont, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa and most recently Maine - now permit gay marriage, and legislation to allow it is in progress in other states.

Massive protests were held outside the Supreme Court in Sacramento - shortly after the decision was handed down – as the decision was met with anger and disappointment by gay rights campaigners.

“Today’s ruling is a miscarriage of justice. No minority group should have to defend its right to equality at the ballot,” said Marc Solomon from the gay rights group, Equality California, in a statement.

He said the group is committed to restoring the freedom to marry and has “already launched a mobilisation campaign to reach more than 300,000 Californians in the next 100 days in places where we need the most movement.”

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he would uphold the court's decision, but added: "I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognise gay marriage."

Gay rights organisations have pledged to continue their fight to get same-sex unions recognised as marriages in California as Equality California announced plans to canvass for about 700,000 verified signatures to return to the ballot box in 2010.

Related reading:


Proposition 8 ruling: separate and unequal (San Francisco Chronicle, Editoral)
"The marriage rights of Californians now fall into three categories. Heterosexual couples have access to all rights, responsibilities - and the name - of marriage. Gays and lesbians who were married between May 15 and Nov. 4 can remain so - but cannot remarry in the event of death or divorce. And all other gays and lesbians are prohibited by law from marrying the partner of their choice.

"There is a word for this type of unequal treatment: Discrimination."

California high court upholds Prop. 8 (LA Times)
“(T)he court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical. ‘It leaves us to the kindness of strangers,’ said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. ‘They could take away anything.’”

Experts not surprised by ruling to uphold Prop 8 (Associated Press via sfgate.com)
“In the end, the California Supreme Court rejected arguments that the gay marriage ban, passed by the voters last fall, was such a fundamental change that it qualified as a constitutional revision - not just an amendment - and therefore needed to first go before lawmakers.”

读者回应

1. 2009-05-27 17:55  
this is NOT anti-gay marriage, or else the court would also have invalidated the previous marriages. what it means is that the PEOPLE have the legal right to CHANGE their minds and their state CONSTITUTION...so now GLBT who want to marry have their work to do - and they KNOW who the enemies are.
2. 2009-05-29 03:46  
another sad day for californians...
3. 2009-06-01 07:41  
Actually, there is an UP-side to this because the "religious right" is now being hit right where it hurts the most: in their wallets. Smart GLBT organizations are beginning to challenge mainline churches' TAX-EXEMPT status with the Internal Revenue Service because they are violating clearly drawn separation of church and state policies by engaging in overt POLITICAL activity.
4. 2009-06-05 20:49  
Re: post 3 - "the "religious right" is now being hit right where it hurts the most: in their wallets. Smart GLBT organizations are beginning to challenge mainline churches' TAX-EXEMPT status"

About time too. I don't see why any religious organisation should have tax exempt status simply by reason of being religious. If the organisation exists purely to do a public good, such as feed the homeless that's another matter. But a simple exemption just encourages charlatans, who make millions out of the gullible (there's quite a history of this in the US), and discriminates financially against those who do not adhere to any organised religion - the non-members are effectively subsidising such organisations and putting money in the pocket of those they may vigorously disagree with. It's quite outrageous really.

I don't know the details, but I would have thought that separation of church and state would logically mean that the state shouldn't give special tax-exempt status to any church or religion.
5. 2009-06-06 00:16  
P.S. - and the money saved by abolishing any special tax rights that exist for purely religious organisations could perhaps be better used by ploughing it into tax exemptions for the needy but socially conscious people working for low pay providing real practical service to the community, such as nurses, police, paramedics, charity workers etc., as opposed to those rich megachurches and associated buinesses.
回应#6於被作者删除。
7. 2009-07-01 21:42  
land of the brave land of the free...wot crap huh!...America a christian two faced whore bleeding the life blood of their youth in their failed oil grab in the middle east, now peddling in their a forlorn 'audacity of hope', didn't the Jews of Europe hope for salvation but end up dieing in the millions, hope is for fools, living in hope makes people passive, sitting waiting, one must truly BELIEVE in ones possibilities and get off your ass and go make it happen. America is a spent state moraly bankrupt, failed, economically ruined, no longer deserving as leader of the so called 'free world' betraying the principles of their founding fathers the blood of their revolutionary dead spent for nothing no respect no honour, America is no beacon to look too in the darkness, her lady of liberty a sadly betrayed wretched tarnished icon, America is a terminally dieing empire now dependent on the good will of a communist dictatorship she is weak and ineffectual... they plain sold out.

请先登入再使用此功能。

Social


请选择新闻及专栏版本

精选个人档案

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

赞好

合作伙伴

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement