NO GOING BACK-Keep Discrimination Out of the CA Constitution
Hi there
We need to have conversations with people about the CA Supreme Court’s decision. Below are some key highlights of the CA Supreme Court's decision. Share this with friends, lovers, family, neighbors, coworkers, clergy..
• This 4-3 ruling states that any measure, whether through legislation or vote, to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the state constitution. The Court held that the “CA legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to exclude them from marrying.”
• To continue allowing marriage between opposite-sex couples while only allowing domestic partnerships to same-sex couples infringes same-sex couples the state constitutional rights and equal protections guaranteed by the CA constitution. It also concluded that permitting opposite-sex couples to marry while affording same-sex couples “access to only the novel and less-recognized status of domestic partnership improperly infringes a same-sex couples constitutional rights to marry and to the equal protections of the laws guaranteed by the California Constitution.”
• This decision directs all local officials in CA to comply with this ruling after the decision becomes final after 30 days.The decision directs state officials to ensure that local officials comply with the court’s ruling and the decision becomes final in 30 days unless that period is extended by court order.
• It is the belief of the Court that history is not a strong enough factor to continue to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. The Court stated that “history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee” ie- the fundamental constitutional right to marry.
• This decision states clearly that domestic partnerships denies same-sex couples the dignity and respect given to opposite-sex couples that are allowed to marry. The Court acknowledged that California’s domestic partnership legislation gave same-sex couples most of the rights in marriage but by assigning a different name for the family relationship denies it the dignity and respect equal to that accorded to opposite-sex couples “and thereby impinges upon a same-sex couple’s right to marry as protected by the California Constitution”
• The Court also determined that the present system of allowing marriage only to opposite-sex couples is discrimination towards same-sex couples comparable to discrimination based on race, gender and religion. The Court also found that the present “marriage statutes embody an instance of discrimination… on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic the majority (of the Court) determines – like gender, race and religion - a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment.”
• The Court also determined that it’s not necessary to prevent marriage of same-sex couples to protect the marriages of opposite-sex couples. The Court also found that “the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary to protect all of the rights and benefits currently enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples. And affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person.
• A concurring opinion of Justice Joyce Kennard said, “The architects of our federal and state constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead to majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection.”
3) If you're in CAlifornia, sign up on the lists at the County Clerks /Assessor’s office in your county to be deputized to legally marry people. This way, we can help with the huge influx of couples planning to be married in the month of June.
4) Get involved and recruit friends, allies, family, roommates and neighbors to also get involved with the battle to defeat the ballot initiative. We can be involved with committing time, money or resources to groups such as the Let California Ring campaign, Marriage Equality USA, NCLR or Equality California. This could be a big and nasty battle and we cannot lose. We will not go back.
5) Tell Gov. Schwarzenegger That You Support the California Supreme Court!
The Governor is conducting a phone survey regarding the California Supreme
Court's historic decision in favor of marriage equality and LGBT rights.
Registering your support is easy:
1. Call 1-916-445-2841
2. Press 1, 5, 1, 1
3. Then pass this e-mail on to others. Thank you!
Remember we each have a voice and therefore the power to keep discrimination out of the state constitution but only if we use.
We need to have conversations with people about the CA Supreme Court’s decision. Below are some key highlights of the CA Supreme Court's decision. Share this with friends, lovers, family, neighbors, coworkers, clergy..
• This 4-3 ruling states that any measure, whether through legislation or vote, to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the state constitution. The Court held that the “CA legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to exclude them from marrying.”
• To continue allowing marriage between opposite-sex couples while only allowing domestic partnerships to same-sex couples infringes same-sex couples the state constitutional rights and equal protections guaranteed by the CA constitution. It also concluded that permitting opposite-sex couples to marry while affording same-sex couples “access to only the novel and less-recognized status of domestic partnership improperly infringes a same-sex couples constitutional rights to marry and to the equal protections of the laws guaranteed by the California Constitution.”
• This decision directs all local officials in CA to comply with this ruling after the decision becomes final after 30 days.The decision directs state officials to ensure that local officials comply with the court’s ruling and the decision becomes final in 30 days unless that period is extended by court order.
• It is the belief of the Court that history is not a strong enough factor to continue to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. The Court stated that “history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee” ie- the fundamental constitutional right to marry.
• This decision states clearly that domestic partnerships denies same-sex couples the dignity and respect given to opposite-sex couples that are allowed to marry. The Court acknowledged that California’s domestic partnership legislation gave same-sex couples most of the rights in marriage but by assigning a different name for the family relationship denies it the dignity and respect equal to that accorded to opposite-sex couples “and thereby impinges upon a same-sex couple’s right to marry as protected by the California Constitution”
• The Court also determined that the present system of allowing marriage only to opposite-sex couples is discrimination towards same-sex couples comparable to discrimination based on race, gender and religion. The Court also found that the present “marriage statutes embody an instance of discrimination… on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic the majority (of the Court) determines – like gender, race and religion - a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment.”
• The Court also determined that it’s not necessary to prevent marriage of same-sex couples to protect the marriages of opposite-sex couples. The Court also found that “the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary to protect all of the rights and benefits currently enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples. And affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person.
• A concurring opinion of Justice Joyce Kennard said, “The architects of our federal and state constitutions understood that widespread and deeply rooted prejudices may lead to majoritarian institutions to deny fundamental freedoms to unpopular minority groups and that the most effective remedy for this form of oppression is an independent judiciary charged with the solemn responsibility to interpret and enforce the constitutional provisions guaranteeing fundamental freedoms and equal protection.”
3) If you're in CAlifornia, sign up on the lists at the County Clerks /Assessor’s office in your county to be deputized to legally marry people. This way, we can help with the huge influx of couples planning to be married in the month of June.
4) Get involved and recruit friends, allies, family, roommates and neighbors to also get involved with the battle to defeat the ballot initiative. We can be involved with committing time, money or resources to groups such as the Let California Ring campaign, Marriage Equality USA, NCLR or Equality California. This could be a big and nasty battle and we cannot lose. We will not go back.
5) Tell Gov. Schwarzenegger That You Support the California Supreme Court!
The Governor is conducting a phone survey regarding the California Supreme
Court's historic decision in favor of marriage equality and LGBT rights.
Registering your support is easy:
1. Call 1-916-445-2841
2. Press 1, 5, 1, 1
3. Then pass this e-mail on to others. Thank you!
Remember we each have a voice and therefore the power to keep discrimination out of the state constitution but only if we use.
Comment
© 2009 Created by QueerToday
You need to be a member of QueerToday.com to add comments!
Join this Ning Network