Gay Marriage in California?

[jaystarr]

Posted: 3/2/08 at 7:06pm

I was eating my dinner and I had the news on (NECN cable news) about Gay marriage in CA. I did not catch the whole news...I googled it but cant find it...Can someone elaborate on the news or link ? for today 3/2 ..What's going on?

Thanks

J*


Updated On: 3/2/08 at 07:06 PM

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/2/08 at 8:16pm

no idea, has been nothing on the news here

[Jilani]

Posted: 3/2/08 at 10:43pm

I put "California Gay Marriage" into the Google news search engine - apparently, the gay marriage case that has been working its way through the courts in California is finally reaching the highest court in the state (the California Supreme Court) - arguments are set for tomorrow, March 4:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8429187

[shanescot]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 1:43am

For the past few years, California has already allowed domestic partnerships, which is the closest thing to marriage that a gay couple can partake in; except for federal taxes, a domestic partnership holds all of the same benefits of a marriage.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 2:08am

The State Supreme Court is hearing a challenge to the state law that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. The lower courts have been split, with the lowest court finding the law unconstitutional, while the court of appeals upheld the law.

The Supreme Court will now weigh in to see whether it believes California's law is constitutional.

"The case combines four lawsuits - three by nearly two dozen couples who want to marry and the fourth by the city of San Francisco, which entered the dispute after the court overturned Mayor Gavin Newsom's order that cleared the way for nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings in February and March 2004.

The suits rely on the California Constitution, which state courts have long interpreted as more protective of individual rights than the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs invoke a passage in the 1948 ruling on interracial marriage - the first of its kind by any state's high court - in which the justices recognized a "right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice."

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco Superior Court echoed that language in March 2005, when he ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violated "the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice." He also said the marriage law constitutes sex discrimination - prohibited by another groundbreaking California Supreme Court ruling in 1971 - because it is based on the gender of one's partner.

But a state appeals court upheld the law in October 2006. In a 2-1 decision, the court rejected Kramer's findings of discrimination and said California was entitled to preserve the historic definition of marriage while taking steps to protect the rights of same-sex couples who register as domestic partners."
SF Chronicle

[joniray]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 7:32am

"except for federal taxes, a domestic partnership holds all of the same benefits of a marriage."

That statement is misleading. Any marriage right that is given under federal law is not available to those in a California civil union (and it has to do with a lot more than just taxes). For instance, if someone's partner was from another country, they couldn't petition for their U.S. citizenship or have any legal recourse to keep them in the country with them, even if they were living in a civil union in California.

[broadwaytourist]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 8:17am

No social security benefits for partner such as disabled "widows" benefits or survivor benefits, social security retirement even though partners pay these taxes just like heterosexual married taxpayers. The gov't just gets to keep these benefits and use them for, oh, I don't know, say - war with made up enemies (editorial)

[Jilani]

Posted: 3/3/08 at 9:03am

"except for federal taxes, a domestic partnership holds all of the same benefits of a marriage."

That statement is misleading.

"Misleading" is generous. That statement is incorrect - the GAO has identified 1,138 federal statutory provisions relating to legal benefits, rights, and privileges that are determined based on marital status, including the ones that have already been identified in this thread. Until same-sex marriage or its equivalent is recognized under federal law, true marriage equality cannot exist, no matter what any single state may try to do.