"In papers filed four days after the legalized same-sex weddings began around the state, advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state's Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone - a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters. 'If enacted, (the November initiative) would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees,' said Stephen Bomse, lawyer for the groups."

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

It's official. In a unanimous vote, the California Supreme Court has rejected a stay in marriage equality. Same-sex couples will now be able to begin getting married on June 17th.

Via SfGate:

The California Supreme Court refused today to put its ruling allowing same-sex marriages on hold until the issue goes before state voters in November, clearing the way for gay and lesbian weddings to begin June 17.

The justices' unanimous vote to deny a stay sought by two conservative organizations will allow thousands of same-sex couples, from California and other states, to marry before the Nov. 4 vote on a state constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling. If the amendment passes, the court will have to decide whether those marriage are valid.

In a separate vote today, the court denied reconsideration of its 4-3 decision May 15 that struck down the law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. That law was passed by the Legislature in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in a 2000 ballot measure.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

An initiative that would again ban marriage between committed same-sex couples in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Here comes the $25 million fight to November. Please folks - head on over to Equality for All or Equality California's issue PAC and make a donation - even if it is $25 dollars.

Labels: anti-gay, california, marriage

Saying he would defend the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling, California Attorney General Jerry Brown urged the court to reject petitions by anti-gay groups who seek to delay the ruling until after the November elections:

"'This historic litigation is now concluded,' wrote Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Christopher E. Krueger in a brief filed with the high court. 'It is time for these proceedings to end.' In the brief, Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown said he plans to enforce the court's May 15 ruling 'with no less vigor' than he previously sought to defend state laws that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples. California's change of heart came as 10 other states, including Florida and Utah, filed a brief in support of a request by gay marriage opponents to delay the effective date of the court ruling. The offices of attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah protested that their states, which restrict marriage to unions of a man and a woman, would be inundated by litigation seeking to have them recognize same-sex nuptials in California."

The L.A. Times notes that "the mere filing of the petition could delay same-sex marriages until mid-July, or, at the latest, mid-August, court officials said.

via Towleroad and via LA Times

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

On today's Ellen (taped yesterday) she talks about the CA Supreme Court decision and swiftly announces that she is going to marry her long-time partner Portia de Rossi.

via TMZ:

A spy in the audience of this afternoon's taping of the "Ellen DeGeneres Show" tells us that after Ellen mentioned today's California Supreme Court ruling striking down the state's ban on gay marriage, she surprised everyone and announced that she was going to tie the knot with longtime girlfriend, actress Portia de Rossi.

Portia was in the crowd and after she made the announcement, the studio audience went wild, giving the two a huge standing O.

Labels: california, ellen degeneres, marriage

As a Californian for the first 18 years of my life I could not be more proud. Yesterday morning when the decision came out from the California Supreme Court, my mom and dad who still live there called me to say how happy they were about this landmark decision. It was pretty cute.

There are so many questions though surrounding the longevity of this decision considering there is a big possibility that anti-gay groups will have the signatures validated for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

Here are a couple of tidbits I found out after researching the issue and how this court decision will play out.

The above number is a huge jump down from the 62% of Californian's who voted for Prop 22 in 2000 that made a statutory change in California law defining marriage between a man and a woman.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

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 monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.

Because this is a state issue, the decision cannot be appealed to a higher level of court. This is the end of this saga. Come November though there is a good chance that a constitutional amendment will be on the ballot. The question then is whether or not this ruling will have an effect on that if it was to be appeal after November should the voters approve discrimination in the California Constitution.

The ruling can be read here.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

The question they will answer:
Does California's statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violate the California Constitution by denying equal protection of the laws on the basis of sexual orientation or sex, by infringing on the fundamental right to marry, or by denying the right to privacy and freedom of expression?

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Tomorrow at 10am, the California Supreme Court will make their ruling on whether California's marriage ban will be upheld or not.

Stay tuned.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

Last week California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came out and came out strong against an anti-marriage equality initiative currently in the works in California. His strong opposition to the anti-marriage initiative surprised many of us as he vetoed two marriage equality bills within the last two years. Here's the video in case you missed it. More about a possible victory in the Supreme Court after the jump.



Today, there are rumors that a source close to the CA Supreme Court said something like this:

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.

Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment...

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court

After the shooting of Lawrence King in his 8th grade classroom last week in Oxnard, California, and subsequently taking the 15 year old boy off of life support, a vigil was held. King was shot in the head by his 14 year-old classmate because he was perceived to have been gay.

An estimated 1000 people gathered to send a message of tribute and tolerance.

From the LA Times:

The Goths in their black T-shirts were there. So were the punks with fluorescent hair and multiple piercings.

There were even a few adolescent boys carrying skateboards among the nearly 1,000 Oxnard youth and other supporters who turned out Saturday for a hastily organized peace march to pay tribute to Lawrence King, 15, the Oxnard student shot to death in a classroom last week.

"Larry, Larry, Larry!" the crowd chanted before marchers clasped hands in a moment of silence for the fallen student.

There were no bullhorns, no speeches and no politicians. Just a mass of mostly adolescents wearing bright clothing, carrying signs and singing John Lennon's "Imagine" and "Give Peace a Chance."

The size of the turnout surprised police, school officials and even the two Hueneme High School sophomores who put the event together just three days ago, spreading the word with fliers, cellphone calls and MySpace bulletins.

"We were expecting maybe 100 or 200 people," said Courtney LaForest, 16, as she gazed at a broad "peace circle" formed by march participants at Plaza Park in downtown Oxnard. "This is incredible."

Courtney said the turnout reflected a community's anguish over a senseless shooting that has destroyed the lives of two young men. It was also a public plea for tolerance on school campuses for those who are different, she said.

"I didn't know Larry. A lot of people here didn't know him," she said. "We are saying you don't need to accept people who are gay, but you should tolerate them."

King, an eighth-grader at E.O. Green Junior High School in south Oxnard, had revealed he was gay this school year. In recent weeks, he had begun accessorizing his school uniform with feminine items and was often teased by other students, several of his classmates said.

"What he did was really brave -- to wear makeup and high-heeled boots," said Erin Mings, 12, who hung out with King at the school. "Every corner he turned around, people were saying, 'Oh, my god, he's wearing makeup today.' "

Erin said King was an outgoing and funny boy who stood his ground.

"When people came up and started punking him, he just stood up for himself," Erin said.

Jeremiah, another student and friend of the victim, said King had recently told the 14-year-old boy who is alleged to have shot him that he had a crush on him.

"I see no point in shooting someone for telling them that you like them," said Jeremiah, who didn't want to give his last name.

Brandon McInerney, 14, who attended E.O. Green with King, has been charged with premeditated murder and will be tried as an adult. He is being held in Ventura County Juvenile Hall in lieu of $770,000 bail. McInerney could face 50 years to life in prison if convicted. Prosecutors added a hate crime allegation that could bring an additional one to three years.

Saturday's march began at Carty Park, adjacent to the junior high school where the shooting took place Tuesday. Students busily scribbled signs on poster boards, with such messages as "RIP Larry King," "Gay Pride" and "Support Love and Tolerance."

Melissa Crutcher, 16, who helped organize the march, said King's slaying infuriated her. Sporting pink-tinged hair, hot pink pants and multiple ear piercings, Melissa said she knew what it was like to get picked on for looking different.

"I know I stick out myself," she said. "And it's just appalling that just for being himself he got shot."

Jerry Dannenberg, superintendent of the Hueneme School District, of which E.O. Green is a part, joined the marchers. He had been told that an event was being planned by students and sent word that the school should support it, Dannenberg said.

"We forget the goodness that is in most of our kids," Dannenberg said. "This tremendous turnout by kids is an expression of their voices, their opinions."

Connor Sipes, 13, showed up with two of his buddies. They attend a different middle school, Connor said, but learned about the march through a posting on MySpace.

Connor wore a headband and a gold peace sign around his neck as the three boys walked the two miles from the school to the city park. He participated because what happened to King "wasn't right," he said. "It will be a better future if we are more tolerant."

Labels: california, hate crimes

Officials in the Poway school district near San Diego did not violate the First Amendment rights of a student they punished for wearing a homophobic T-shirt to class, a federal judge ruled.

Tyler Chase Harper sued the school district in 2004, arguing that his rights were violated when he was removed from class for wearing the anti-gay shirt on the Day of Silence, which is intended to promote tolerance of gays and lesbians. The shirt read "I Will Not Accept What God Has Condemned" on one side and "Homosexuality Is Shameful, Romans 1:27" on the other side.

The next day, he wore the same shirt, but it had been altered to read "Be Ashamed [of What] Our School Has Embraced." School administrators asked him to remove his shirt on the second day because they said it violated their dress code, which bans promotion of "violent or hateful behavior."

Harper refused, and he was removed from class and assigned to the front office to complete his day's remaining schoolwork.

"The main point of the case is free speech, and students have their right to be heard on campus," Kevin Theriot, one of Harper's attorneys, told The Advocate in May. "Just because other students don't agree, doesn't mean that he can't voice [his opinions]."

The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which eventually nullified it because at that point Harper had already graduated from high school. His sister Kelsie then took his place in the case, where it is now. When her brother first went to the federal court, he won.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Houston overturned the court's earlier decision. Houston decided not to issue an injunction to stop the district from enforcing the policy in 2006. A year later, he threw out the case against the district.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Houston's decision not to issue an injunction, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Houston wrote Tuesday that Poway school district's "interest in protecting homosexual students from harassment is a legitimate pedagogical concern that allows a school to restrict speech expressing damaging statements about sexual orientation and limiting students to expressing their views in a positive manner."

Free-speech advocates and the Harpers' legal team are distraught over the decision, which states that school districts are within their rights to protect students by limiting freedom of expression.

David Blair-Loy, the legal director for San Diego and Imperial County American Civil Liberties Union, told the newspaper that the ruling is troubling. The organization filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the student's behalf, siding with religious groups they normally argue against.

"And let's face it: What about high school is not psychologically damaging?" Blair-Loy said in the article. "This student wore a T-shirt that expressed an idea. It's an idea we don't agree with at the ACLU, but that is the essence of free speech. It's not just for ideas you like."

Via Planetout

Labels: anti gay, california, federal court, lawsuit

A conservative Christian group has failed to collect enough signatures to force a vote to repeal a California law protecting students from discrimination, harassment and bullying in publicly-funded schools.

But a legal challenge to the law is still before the courts.

Save Our Kids, the organization that spearheaded the referendum effort says it collected over 350,000 signatures to overturn the law - far short of the required 434,000 signatures that had to be turned in on Friday.

The Student Civil Rights Act, passed and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year, mandates that teachers and school administrators fully understand their responsibilities to protect LGBT youth.

Various California laws have prohibited discrimination in public education on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, religion, race, disability and gender for a number of years.

But in some instances school administrators have been unclear about all the laws and what they need to do to fight bullying. The Student Civil Rights Act updated the existing Education Code to bring all the discrimination laws under one section.

Opponents of the law have claimed it will force schools to "promote homosexuality" and to "persecute Christians who oppose homosexuality".

"Opponents of SB 777 have been spreading misinformation and outright lies for months, and whether they actually collected 350,000 signatures, we will never know," said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors.

"What is clear is that they failed. Despite their vicious attack, Californians stood with us and said 'no' to turning back the clock on civil rights and protecting all youth from discrimination in our schools."

via 365 Gay

Labels: anti-bully, anti-discrimination, anti-gay, california, losers

I know we've posted this before, but today feels like a good day for a refresher. 'Let California Ring' is a massive public education project - educating Californians about why marriage equality matters. Their commercial is below. PS - They need to raise money to help get this on more airwaves. Have 10 bucks? Make a contribution. Link below the video.



Like the video? Want to see marriage equality in California? Go here to watch again and to donate - even if it is 10 bucks. It all helps.

Labels: california, marriage, video

Gavin here. I'm heading out into the great outdoors this weekend so I will also be taking a hiatus from blogging until the beginning of next week.

I do want to leave you with one thing though. In California there is a massive coalition of fair-minded groups who have launched a massive public education campaign. I leave you with this great video from the new campaign. See you all on the other side.

G.S.

Labels: california, marriage, video

Yesterday, Governor Chris Gregoire signed into law, legislation to give gay and lesbian couples some of the rights that come with marriage.

The domestic partnership bill will create a domestic partnership registry with the state, and provide enhanced rights for same-sex couples, including hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations and inheritance rights when there is no will.

To be registered, couples would have to share a home, not be married or in a domestic relationship with someone else, and be at least 18.

Now, California and Washington both have domestic partnership laws on the book. The two vary in the amount of rights given to those couples in the Domestic Partnership. Washington's give about a dozen rights and protections, whereas California's law is more expansive.

Oregon will soon be next on the short list of states that offer domestic partnerships benefits at a statewide level. Oregon's House Bill 2007 passed the Oregon House 34-26 this past week and is heading to the Oregon Senate shortly. This week Oregon also passed Senate Bill 2, The Oregon Equality Act, which will ban discrimination based on sexual orientation (GLBT or straight) in areas such as housing, employment, public accommodation and public education. The Governor has pledged to sign both bills when they reach his desk.

Labels: anti-discrimination, california, domestic partnership, gay rights, HB 2007, legislature, oregon, SB 2, washington

Legislation that would replace Vermont's landmark civil union law with same-sex marriage was introduced Wednesday at the State House.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Mark Larson (D) and has 32 house members and 10 senators as co-sponsors.
"After seven years of civil unions, this is simply the right thing to do," Larson said in introducing the legislation.

The measure is similar to one Larson put forward last year but failed to gain support.

The legislation, Larson said, would do three things. First, it would give same-sex couples the right to marry. Secondly, it would allow clergy to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage if it violated their religious beliefs. Thirdly it would convert civil unions already performed into marriages.

In 2000 the Vermont Supreme Court ordered the legislature to recognize the rights of same-sex couples. The debate over civil unions opened up major rifts across the state, but sponsors of the gay marriage bill said the proposal is expected to move much more slowly.

If the measure passes and if Gov. Jim Douglas signs it, Vermont would become the second state to permit same-sex marriage. Connecticut and New Jersey allow civil unions.

Connecticut is also going for full marriage equality-as is California for the second year in a row. California's Legislature passed AB 849 last session but the Governor vetoed the historic legislation.

Labels: california, civil union, legislature, marriage, vermont

Fifty-seven percent of the American public believe that another state will legalize same-sex marriage in 2007 according to a new poll.

The Associated Press-AOL survey asked Americans their predictions on a wide variety of issues.

On the issue of marriage, the prediction of another state legalizing gay weddings does not necessarily suggest 57 percent supported the idea, just that they believed it would occur.

Currently Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex couples can wed. Civil unions are available in Vermont and Connecticut.

In 2006 the Supreme Court of New Jersey declared it unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples rights and benefits of marriage but left it to the legislature to decide whether it should be called marriage or civil unions. Lawmakers opted for civil unions and the law will go into effect next month.

The only state where the issue of gay marriage will reach the Supreme Court this year is California, although lawsuits are underway in several other states at the lower court level.

In California, which already has the nation's strongest domestic partner law, the legislature will also consider a bill that would legalize gay marriage. A similar bill last year passed both the state Assembly and Senate only to be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The telephone poll of 1,000 adults was conducted Dec. 12-14 by Ipsos, an international polling firm. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Labels: california, marriage, poll

As many of you will remember California passed a bill via the legislature that would have created full marriage equality for same-sex couples. This bill was AB 849 (click here for past coverage by us). AB 849 passed in both chambers, yet Governor Schwarzenegger Vetoed the bill.

Equality California, California's largest GLBT advocacy organization, had a record 14 pro-equality bills passed this year. A truly amazing amount of fantastic legislation and some very momentous milestones for California's GLBT community.

Assemblymember Mark Leno, in conjunction with Equality California will be introducing the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act at the start of the 2007-2008 session. This bill is identical to AB 849 from the last go around.

So why now? Schwarzenegger vetoed it last time, so why would this time be any different? Well there are a few reasons. The first and probably largest factor is that Schwarzenegger will not be seeking re-election. Second, sources tell us that in a meeting between gay families, Schwarzenegger and his wife Maria Shriver, Shriver leaned to Arnold and urged him to support this legislation with some very, very encouraging words. Third, California's voters sent the state's most GLBT-friendly legislature in the state's history to be sworn in on December 4th, 2006.

California has everything going in their favor at this point-except one. A constitutional amendment that has been proposed for the 2008 ballot.

So stay tuned and we will keep you up-to-date as any news comes our way. 2007 could prove to trump 2006 when it comes to pro-equality milestones in California.

You may be interested in:

Attorneys representing same-sex couples in California, along with the human rights organizations Equality California and Our Family Coalition, have petitioned the California State Supreme Court to decide whether banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, the ACLU announced Monday.

An April 2005 ruling from the San Francisco Superior Court stated that preventing same-sex couples from marrying was in fact a violation of the state constitution, but the California court of appeals later overturned this in a 2-1 decision last month. This petition asks the court to reverse this ruling.

A wide variety of human and civil rights groups have filed amicus briefs supporting the petition, including the California NAACP, the California Council of Churches, and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center.

The California Supreme Court has 60 days to rule on the petition and may extend that period by not more than an additional 30 days. (The Advocate)

Read the announcement from Equality California - click here.

Labels: california, marriage, supreme court