Apparently it just passed that gay couples can marry there. I don't have an article though, my Mom just told me over the phone.

I can't believe it actually took California this long to be honest...

Here's an article I just found:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/05/14/state/n111151D62.DTL

The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

The cases before the California court 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.

The state legislature actually passed a law allowing gay marriage twice now. Governer Schwarzeneggar (sp?) has also vetoed it twice.

California's top court to rule on gay marriage
By LISA LEFF – 8 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Both sides in the gay marriage debate will be watching California's highest court Thursday to see if the nation's biggest state goes the way of Massachusetts and legalizes same-sex marriage.

The California Supreme Court was scheduled to rule on a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.

Supporters and opponents of gay marriage predicted a number of possible outcomes from the California court's seven justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican governors.

Like the top court in Massachusetts, they could hold that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying constitutes unlawful discrimination and order state lawmakers to remedy the situation.

Less likely but still feasible, they could bypass the Legislature and simply strike the one man-one woman definition from the marriage statutes, according to Kors. In that instance, the soonest couples could start walking down the aisle would be in 30 days, the time it typically takes for Supreme Court opinions to become final, he said.

A majority of the justices could also join the top courts in four other states that have upheld gay marriage bans.

Such a decision would leave any subsequent changes in the hands of voters or the Legislature, which has twice passed laws to make gay marriage legal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them both times, citing the ban approved by voters in 2000.

"If California issues a decision legalizing same-sex marriage, it will reinvigorate the fight for same-sex marriage" nationally, said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. "But if they affirm that marriage is for a man and a woman, then what has happened is that Massachusetts is leading a one-state parade."

Lorence and Kors agreed that there is another, more nuanced option. The court could strike down the 2000 ban, known as Proposition 22, but give the Legislature the leeway of devising a solution that falls short of allowing marriage for all.

That's what the New Jersey Supreme Court did in 2006. After that court ruled that gay couples should receive the same legal protections as husbands and wives, New Jersey legislators opted to allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, designed to give them spousal rights without marriage.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

The cases before the California court 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.

I remember a while back going shopping and literally every store I went to, there was a person in front with a petition about gay marriage. It got a little annoying after the third store.

:thumbsup

it's about time!!

good for them.... :)

:woot


That's GREAT news!

:yay

:tu :cp

:five

:yahoo

Link?

:woohoo

FINALLY!

Woohoo! I remember when MA allowed same-sex marriages for the first time (May 17, 2004.) How momentous!

let me try and find a good one

Link?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage

it is about freaking time ! wonder how long it will take for all the others to follow suit

it is about freaking time ! wonder how long it will take for all the others to follow suit

I doubt all states will. The difference is that CA residents had originally voted to allow same-sex marriages, then it was overturned at some point, now the CA supreme court has over turned that. If the citizens of the states have voted it down, than I think it will be upheld. Not taking a stand one way or the other, but in my opinion that is how it should be decided, by the state voters.

Yay!!It's about damn time :).

:yay

it is about freaking time ! wonder how long it will take for all the others to follow suit

Unfortunately it could be years.Hopefully not though.

:yay My cousin and his husband got married in MA when same sex marriages were allowed there and I'm so glad that couples in CA will have the same opportunity!

Bet it wasn't as annoying as being told you can not marry the person that you love is.

I was just watching Fox News and it still will be on the ballot in November for the voters to decide. I was under the impression that they had, but it was just the legislature that voted on it, not the voters as in other states.

If the citizens of the states have voted it down, than I think it will be upheld. Not taking a stand one way or the other, but in my opinion that is how it should be decided, by the state voters.
Me too. State's rights... I just wish people weren't so opposed to it. I don't get why.
A lot of states never will vote for it. At least not in our lifetime. In the 2006 congressional elections every state that had gay marraige bans on the ballot voted for them overwhelmingly. Can't remember the number of states or the voter percentage. Sorry this was all I could find on it:
It was another grim election for advocates of gay marriage, with seven more states adding amendments banning the practice to their state constitutions. Colorado both passed its anti-gay-marriage initiative and rejected a proposal to allow civil unions that was thought to have a chance of success. Gay-rights advocates noted that the bans generally passed by narrower margins than in 2004, but Jon Davidson, the legal director for the pro-gay-rights Lambda Legal, noted before the vote, "Almost is only in horseshoes. At the end of the day, if you lose the election, you lose the election." His only real glimmer of hope was Arizona, which became the first state to reject an anti-gay-marriage measure.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061108/8ballot.htm

The state legislature actually passed a law allowing gay marriage twice now. Governer Schwarzeneggar (sp?) has also vetoed it twice.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage;_ylt=AoYWKJtVrljU8DCCNTogTTQazJV4

Schwarzenegger is backing up the california supreme court :D
There is a group trying to get an amendment to the california constitution on the ballot this november to define marraige as a union between man and woman

California's secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to put the gay-marriage amendment on the ballot.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would have granted marriage to same-sex couples, said in a statement that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

I Love the Governator right now ;)

The thing that bothers me is that the marriage laws AS they are written DO NOT prohibt same sex marriage. It is just that the government of most states refuse to acknowledge them and won't issue the licenses. The law says nothing about it not being allowed in most states. (I know some states have changed this)

Laws are being made to prohibit state marriage is only between male/female couples and others are just getting it written down that same sex couples can indeed get married and have the state acknowledge it. When really if people stopped being dicks about it then it would not be a big deal. Why should the people get to vote on if some other people have the right to be married such a bunch of crap.

The thing that bothers me is that the marriage laws AS they are written DO NOT prohibt same sex marriage. It is just that the government of most states refuse to acknowledge them and won't issue the licenses. The law says nothing about it not being allowed in most states. (I know some states have changed this)

Laws are being made to prohibit state marriage is only between male/female couples and others are just getting it written down that same sex couples can indeed get married and have the state acknowledge it. When really if people stopped being dicks about it then it would not be a big deal. Why should the people get to vote on if some other people have the right to be married such a bunch of crap.

Yay! Score one for the good guys.

:yay I can proudly say I signed one of those petetions(sp?) allowing same-sex marriages here in CA. Not sure how much of a difference my John Handcock made but :yay