Ruling Undermines 'Ex-Gay' Propaganda And Lets Potential Recruits See The Truth About Same-Sex Relationships
NEW YORK - TruthWinsOut.org expressed jubilation over the California Supreme Court's decision to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage. The momentous 4-3 ruling is one of the biggest victories in the GLBT equality movement’s history. It also undermines "ex-gay" propaganda that demeans gay relationships to recruit new members.
"We are thrilled to be a part of history and experience a monumental victory for marriage equality," said Wayne Besen, TruthWinsOut.org's Executive Director. "The court made a bold decision and confirmed that all relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, are equal in California."
"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest," the court said in a majority decision. "Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."
The California court also said that the right to marry in the state's constitution "guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship."
"This ruling is a devastating blow to 'ex-gay' cults, because it undermines their propaganda, which claims that same-sex relationships don't work," said TWO's Besen. "The images of happy couples marrying undercut their efforts to recruit vulnerable people."
The ruling will take effect and marriages will begin in 30 days. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement that said he will "respect the court's decision and will "uphold its ruling." He also said that he "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
TruthWinsout.org is a non-profit organization that counters right wing propaganda, exposes the "ex-gay" myth and educates America about gay life. For more information, visit www.TruthWinsOut.org.
REAL freedom is on the march (not bush's Iraq war bullshit). I hope this an omen of what the rethuglikkkans can expect next November. The Golden State lives up to it's name once again. Next on the list--New Jersey.
posted by Anonymous, at
5/15/2008 5:37 PM
The best part is that California doesn't have a silly law to not allow couples from other states to get married in California.
So if a homosexual couple from Oregon, for instance, goes to San Francisco to get married overlooking the Golden Gate Bridge, Oregon will have to recognize that marriage just the same as they recognize the marriage of a heterosexual couple.
Why? Part of the US Constitution says that States have to recognize contracts, etc of other states:
Article. IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
It's wonderful that the Constitution is so clear on this.
This is a wonderful moment in our history. Tim, you are correct. However, the majority of states are in violation of Article IV, Section 1. Now that California has joined Massachusetts, New Jersey will of course have no alternative but to convert its Civil Union law into full marriage recognition, inevitable. The horse is out of the barn, there will be NO turning back, no matter how long it takes and its going to become increasingly difficult for any Democrat running for office to bury his or her head in the sand over this one. Its now time, more than ever, to hold their collective feet to the fire. Well done, California! Its a disgrace that New York State is so behind. I doubt if Spitzer's marriage equality legislation will hit the floor in 2009, let alone pass while neocon Joseph Bruno controls the state senate to our detriment.
posted by Robert, NYC., at
5/16/2008 5:41 AM
As a follow-up to my previous posting, assuming Obama wins the White House in November, both he and Clinton don't believe in full marriage equality, only civil unions at the federal level. How will California and Massachusetts be treated? What about the 26 states that have constitutional bans on marriage equality and/or civil unions. What then? How will that be resolved if at all?
posted by Robert, NYC., at
5/17/2008 5:53 AM
I'm sorry, but what is with the sudden amnesia?!? Everyone keeps saying "oh now all the states will have to recognize it". Um, hello, no they won't:
*DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT*
That's exactly what it was designed for, so that gay marriage would not have to be recognized in other states. Have we not been paying attention these last eight years???
Even if it sticks in California, it still won't exist outside the state border, except in MA and maybe NJ once they get their shit together.
Anyway, I'm not sure about Clinton, but Obama has said he believes in gay equality and that he believes civil union is the way to achieve it.
So he's still on the right track, even though there are some flaws in his logic. I think once he (and most people) understand that a civil union does NOT hold up in legal discourse where marriage does, he will realize that it's not a simple matter of calling it something else.
I think Obama can be educated on this issue and learn the difference between marriage and civil union. But even a lot of gay people I talk to don't know the difference either. We as a nation need to be more educated about this, in general.
Are we as advocates of gay rights doing enough to make the legal difference between marriage and civil union clear to everyone we can?
As for the state amendments, those will be a bitch to remove one way or the other.
posted by Eshto, at
5/19/2008 9:46 PM