| "Today
the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody
-- not just in the state of California, but throughout the country --
will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis
Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger said he will support the decision.
"I respect the court's decision
and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said in
a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support
an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme
Court ruling."
The cases were brought by the city of
San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California
and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San
Francisco's month-long same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor
Gavin Newsom's direction.
Democratic members on Capitol Hill
congratulated the court on the decision.
"Massachusetts has recognized the
right of gay and lesbian couples to marry since 2004 and our experience
has refuted the critics. We only strengthen our society when we allow
all our citizens to enter into a solemn commitment to share in life's
joys and difficulties," said Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy.
"Today is a significant milestone
for which all Californians can take pride," said House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi of California. "I commend the plaintiffs from San
Francisco for their courage and commitment."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.... more from CNN.com
The ruling
surprised legal experts because the court has a reputation for being
conservative. Six of its seven judges are
Republican appointees.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis
Herrera said he is "profoundly grateful" for the decision and
for the court's "eloquence" in its delivery.
"After four long years, we're
very, very gratified," he said.
Shannon Minter, attorney for one of
the plaintiffs in the case, the National Center for Lesbian Rights,
called the ruling "a moment of pure happiness and joy for so many
families in California."
"California sets the tone, and
this will have a huge effect across the nation to bringing wider
acceptance for gay and lesbian couples," he said.
Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay
and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, issued a statement saying,
"Today's ruling affirms that committed couples, gay and straight,
should not be denied the duties, obligations and protections of
marriage. ... This decision is a vital affirmation to countless
California couples -- straight and gay -- who want to make and have made
a lifelong commitment to take care of and be responsible for each
other."
Groups opposing same-sex marriage also
reacted strongly to the ruling.
"The California Supreme Court has
engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its
role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from
the bench," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues
for the group Concerned Women for America, in a written statement.
"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 organization said that a
constitutional marriage amendment should be placed on the November
ballot and that national efforts should be made to generate a federal
marriage amendment.
"The decision must be removed
from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands
of the people," Barber said.
A constitutional amendment initiative
specifying that marriage is only between a man and a woman is awaiting
verification by the secretary of state's office after its sponsors said
they had gathered enough signatures to place it on the statewide ballot.
The parties cannot appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Herrera said, as
federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the state laws. "This
is the final say," he said.
In a dissenting opinion, Associate
Justice Marvin Baxter wrote that although he agrees with some of the
majority's conclusions, the court was overstepping its bounds in
striking down the ban. Instead, he wrote, the issue should be left to
the voters.
In 2004, San Francisco officials
allowed gay couples in the city to wed, prompting a flood of applicants
crowding the city hall clerk's office. The first couple to wed then was
80-year-old Phyllis Lyon and 83-year-old Dorothy Martin, lovers for 50
years.
"We have a right just like anyone
else to get married to the person we want to get married to," Lyon
said at the time.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom
called the ruling a victory not just for the city "but for
literally millions of people. ... What the court did is simply affirm
their lives."
CNN's Ted Rowlands reported that
"huge cheers" went up in San Francisco when the ruling was
announced.
In California, a 2000 voter referendum
banned same-sex marriage, but state lawmakers have made two efforts to
allow gay and lesbian couples to wed. Republican Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger vetoed both bills.
"I respect the
court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling,"
Schwarzenegger said in a statement issued Thursday. "Also, as I
have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the
constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
Massachusetts legalized same-sex
marriages in 2004, and gay couples need not be state residents there to
wed. However, then-Gov. Mitt Romney resurrected a 1913 law barring
non-resident marriages in the state if the marriage would be prohibited
in the partners' home state.
Subsequent court and agency decisions
have determined that only residents of Massachusetts, Rhode Island or
New Mexico may marry in the state, unless the marriage partners say they
intend to relocate to Massachusetts after the marriage.
New Hampshire, Vermont, New Jersey and
Connecticut permit civil unions, and California has a domestic-partner
registration law. More than a dozen other states give gay couples some
legal rights, as do some other countries.
"It's a throwaway line, but I
think it's true: As California goes, so goes the rest of the
nation," Newsom said. "And I don't think people should be
paranoid about that. ... Look what happened in Massachusetts a number of
years ago. Massachusetts is doing just fine. The state is doing
wonderfully."
The state law in question in the case,
which consolidated six cases, was the Defense of Marriage Act,
Proposition 22. Oral arguments in March lasted more than three hours.
"There can be no doubt that
extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than
denying it to all couples, is the equal protection remedy that is most
consistent with our state's general legislative policy and
preference," the ruling said.
"Accordingly, in light of the
conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to
us for resolution, we determine that the language of Section 300
limiting the designation of marriage to a 'union between a man and a
woman' is unconstitutional, and that the remaining statutory language
must be understood as making the designation of marriage available to
both opposite-sex and same-sex couples."
Newsom compared the
ruling to the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a Virginia case
overturning that state's ban on interracial marriage.
"This is about
civil marriage. This is about fundamental rights," he said.
The ruling may make the same-sex
marriage issue more important in November elections.
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee
Sen. John McCain supports "traditional" marriage but opposes a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, saying individual
states should decide the issue. He also backs some legal benefits for
same-sex couples.
Democratic
presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton both
oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. They also oppose a
constitutional ban.
CNN's Bill
Mears contributed to this report. |