YAY!!!!!!
same-sex marriage ban in CA overturned!!!!!!!
::happy happy happy dance::
"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."
GEORGE, C. J.
WE CONCUR:
KENNARD, J.
WERDEGAR, J.
MORENO, J.
let me know if you want me to email you the full decision :) or go to http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/ (In re Marriage Cases 5/15/08 SC)
!!!!!
AND ALSO, look out for the evil ballot initiative to amend the CA constitution this fall -- donate to queer orgs fighting it!!
www.hrc.org
www.lambdalegal.org
www.eqca.org
::happy happy happy dance::
"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."
GEORGE, C. J.
WE CONCUR:
KENNARD, J.
WERDEGAR, J.
MORENO, J.
let me know if you want me to email you the full decision :) or go to http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/ (In re Marriage Cases 5/15/08 SC)
!!!!!
AND ALSO, look out for the evil ballot initiative to amend the CA constitution this fall -- donate to queer orgs fighting it!!
www.hrc.org
www.lambdalegal.org
www.eqca.org