Box Turtle Bulletin

It’s A Win! California Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Same Sex Marriage!

Marriage equality has arrived in California (PDF: 469KB/172 pages):

…[W]e conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

…

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 must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

Update: The court’s decision was a 4-3 split. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has released the following statement:

I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling.  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.

Visiting San Diego?

San Diego is worth a visit. The city is charming and friendly with a world famous zoo, beautiful parks, perfect weather, and a thriving gay community. And although it is a military city that leans Republican, they are often of the pro-gay variety and the city is very supportive of its gay residents.

However, not everyone will make you welcome. For example, much of the funding for the anti-gay marriage amendment in California came from San Diego.

Among the major donors to Protect Marriage are a group of San Diego County businessmen. Developer Doug Manchester alone has contributed $125,000 prompting gays to urge a boycott of his properties. Manchester owns the Manchester Grand Hyatt and the San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina.

Mission Valley developer Terry Caster has donated $162,500, Carlsbad car dealer Robert Hoehn gave $25,000, and La Jolla businessman Roger Benson has given $50,000, according to state records.

Now these businessmen are entitled to their opinions and to seek the advancement of their political goals, even if they are designed to harm gay men and women. And we are entitled to avoid giving them a single cent, if possible.

So if you live in San Diego, or are planning a visit, you may wish to avoid patronizing any of the following businesses.

Manchester:

The Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego
The San Diego Marriott Hotel and Marina
The Grand Del Mar
Whitetail Club & Resort

Caster:

A1 Self Storage (throughout California)
Caster Center and Stadium Park

Hoehn:

Hoehn Mercedes
Hoehn Porsche
Hoehn Audi
Hoehn Infinity
Hoehn Acura
Hoehn Honda

Roger Benson appears to be retired and I am unable to identify his investment or ownership in any business that might be impacted by my spending decisions.

Some activists in San Diego are considering calling for a boycott of the above listed businesses. Complicating matters is that some of the businesses have a national reputation for working with the community. Hyatt, for example, is proud of their perfect score by HRC.

But some are not waiting for an official boycott. GLAAD has already pulled from an event at Manchester’s hotel.

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation announced that it has withdrawn from a “Pride Rocks” event scheduled for the summer at the Hyatt owned by Doug Manchester. The event celebrates gay pride.

The president of the gay and lesbian alliance , Neil Giuliano, said in a news release that Manchester’s decision to fund an initiative that would “hurt loving, committed gay couples makes it impossible for us” to take part in an event that promotes his hotel.

So if you are considering a visit to one of the most beautiful cities in California, by all means please come. Just put some thought into where your money goes while you’re there.

California Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Petitions Submitted

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the anti-gay group, Protect Marriage, has submitted their signatures to the county registrars to place an amendment on the November ballot.

A coalition of religious groups called Protect Marriage collected more than 1.1 million signatures in support of the amendment, said Brian Brown, executive director of the California office of the National Organization for Marriage.

The initiative needs 694,354 signatures, or 8 percent of the votes cast in the last governor’s race, to make it onto the ballot. However, a large percentage of signatures tend to be invalid so petition goals were at 1.1 million.

When I checked their site last week, Protect Marriage was still about 50,000 short. Their website currently is not self-congratulatory, but the Chronicle may be right in their reporting. But even if they are a little short, there is still a good chance that the sample validation may prove that adequate signatures were raised.

If this reaches the ballot for November, there will undoubtedly be an expensive and fierce battle within the state. Fortunately, the Governor has promised to oppose the constitutional amendment, which will be very helpful for appealing to moderates.

UPDATE: the Protect Marriage website now states “We have received over 1.1 million signatures to qualify the California Marriage Protection Act for the ballot!”

Gov. Schwarzenegger Opposes Gay Marriage Ban

Scott Schmidt is at the Log Cabin Republicans Convention, liveblogging California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s address:

Speaking to the Log Cabin Republicans, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger came out against a ballot measure circulating in California to add a gay marriage ban to the State Constitution. Stating that he “will always be there to fight against that,” Schwarzenegger made one of his first pubic statements about the initiative constitutional amendment in circulation.

California Group Claims Nearly Enough Signatures for Anti-Marriage Ballot Measure

The California organization “Protect Marriage” says it is close to meeting the requirement to place a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage on the ballot. The group says it has collected 881,000 of the 1.1 million signatures it needs to qualify. The deadline is April 21.