Sad News on the Marriage Equality Front

What most of us expected, and dreaded, came true today. In a 6-1 ruling, the California Supreme Court made the decision today to uphold Proposition 8, the initiative that took away the right to marry from same-sex couples in California

However, on a more positive note, the court did rule that the 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place last year after the court’s previous ruling that gays and lesbians could not be denied the right to marry each other, would remain valid.

Although the immediate impact of the decision is on the status of marriage for same-sex couples, the real question for the court was deciding what kinds of changes to the Constitution make it an amendment, requiring only a simple majority vote of the electorate, and what make it a revision, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature and a simple majority vote of the people. By ruling that Prop 8 was truly an amendment, the court found the will of the majority (in California) is enough to strike down the rights of a minority because doing so does not change the fundamental nature of the governmental process.

However, LGBT activists believe that this interpretation of Proposition 8 takes away fundamental safeguards for all minority groups, showing another example of how the power of a majority over an underrepresented and historically oppressed minority can prove to be devastating.

So what happened to the words of our Constitution, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Do these words only apply to some? Are we really just second class citizens?

Well, the one thing I do know is that this is not the end of marriage equality in California. In 2010 there will be another initiative before California voters that will try again to overturn Prop 8. And with five states now allowing gay marriage, and more expected to join this year, it is only inevitable that same-sex marriage will become legal in California, it will just be a matter of time.

May 26, 2009: Prop 8 Decision Day

The California Supreme Court has just announced that on on Tuesday, May 26, they will release their decision on the fate of Proposition 8.

As the Courage Campaign put it, "The court will either uphold the Constitution, recognizing equal protection under the law, or uphold discrimination, taking away fundamental civil rights from a minority."

If you would like to hear the courts decision as soon as it is released releases it, the Courage Campaign is offering an email alert service that you can sign up for at:
www.couragecampaign.org/DecisionDay

And please remember, on Saturday May 30th, at 1:00pm, no matter what the court decides,
thousands of marriage equality supporters from across California will "Meet in the Middle for Equality" to celebrate or protest the Supreme Court's ruling at Fresno City Hall.

Nearly 100 organizations are mobilizing members for this amazing event in the heartland of California. "Equality Express" buses are leaving from several locations across the state. If you don't already have a spot reserved, think about car pooling with your friends to Fresno. For more information you can check out their web site at: www.meetinthemiddle4equality.com

Prop 8 decision may come as early as Thursday

This Thursday the California Supreme Court may rules on whether it intends to uphold Proposition 8, and if it does, whether the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will remain valid, during a high-stakes televised session that has sparked plans for demonstrations throughout California.

Thousands are expected to descend Thursday on the San Francisco Civic Center to watch the hearing live on a giant outdoor screen, just steps from the courtroom where the justices will be prodding lawyers in a jammed courtroom.

By now, the court already has drafted a decision on the case, with an author and at least three other justices willing to sign it. Oral arguments sometimes result in changes to the draft, but rarely do they change the majority position. The ruling is due in 90 days.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who wrote the historic May 15, 2008, decision that gave same-sex couples the right to marry, will be the one to watch during the hearing because he is often in the majority and usually writes the rulings in the most controversial cases.

CA Supreme Court allows school to expel lesbians

Last week the California Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that allowed a private religious school to expel two teenage girls for having an alleged lesbian relationship.

The girls were juniors at California Lutheran High School when their principal, Gregory Bork, called them to his office in September 2005 and questioned them separately about their sexual orientation, after another student reported postings on their MySpace pages. He then suspended them based on their answers, and the school's directors expelled them a month later stating they were exhibiting “a bond of intimacy” that was “characteristic of a lesbian relationship.”

The teens parents initially sued the Riverside County school, based on the Unruh Act, a 1959 state law that forbids discrimination by businesses that was amended in 2005 to include bias based on sexual orientation, as well as someone else's perception of sexual orientation.

In January, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said the school is not a business, but a social organization entitled to follow its principles. The ruling relied on a 1998 California Supreme Court decision that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists. The Boy Scouts of America, which had faced similar discrimination charges, did not have to comply with the state's anti-discrimination law because it was a social organization.

Advocates for religious freedom called it "the right decision," however, the teen's attorney, Mike Grace, said he fears the decision could open the door for more religious discrimination.

Source:
Los Angeles Times

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Prop. 8 Cases on Thursday

In a recent Press Release, The California Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009, on three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. (Strauss v. Horton, S168047; Tyler v. State of California, S168066; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078).

In the cases before the court, the court has issued an order listing the following three issues to be briefed and argued:

1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?
   
2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
   
3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
   

The three cases were filed directly in the California Supreme Court on November 5, 2008, the day after the California voters’ approved Prop 8.

ACCESS TO ORAL ARGUMENTS
To increase public access to the court session, the Supreme Court has designated the California Channel, a public affairs cable network, to provide a live TV broadcast of the session and to serve as the "pool" channel. California Channel will provide a press pool outside the State Building to facilitate coverage of the oral argument by television and radio stations. For a list of cable companies that carry the network, see http://www.calchannel.com/carriage.htm.

Oral arguments also will be broadcast in an overflow viewing auditorium in the Milton Marks Conference Center, San Francisco. In addition, the Supreme Court has announced that all briefs in the Proposition 8 cases are now posted to a special section of the California Courts Web site at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/ .

Under the applicable court rules, the Supreme Court generally issues a decision, through a written opinion, within 90 days of oral argument. For more information on the cases, including the attorneys of record, please see the Supreme Court’s online Case Information System at http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search.cfm?dist=0.

California Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Prop 8 Legal Challenge

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will hear oral arguments on Thursday, March 5, 2009 in the Proposition 8 legal challenge.

On November 19, 2008, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the legal challenges to Proposition 8 and set an expedited schedule. Briefing in the case was completed on January 21, 2009.

The California Supreme Court must issue its decisions within 90 days of oral argument.

On January 15, 2009, 43 friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Court to invalidate Prop 8 were filed, arguing that Proposition 8 drastically alters the equal protection guarantee in California ’s Constitution and that the rights of a minority cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote.

The supporters represent the full gamut of California ’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups.

In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians.

Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group. Proposition 8 passed by a bare majority of 52 percent on November 4.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU filed this challenge on November 5, representing Equality California, whose members include many same-sex couples who married between June 16 and November 4, 2008, and six same-sex couples who want to marry in California . The California Supreme Court has also agreed to hear two other challenges filed on the same day: one filed by the City and County of San Francisco (joined by Santa Clara County and the City of Los Angeles, and subsequently by Los Angeles County and other local governments); and another filed by a private attorney.

Serving as co-counsel on the case with NCLR, Lambda Legal, and the ACLU are the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Strauss et al. v. Horton et al. (#S168047). Click here for more information.


Source: Equality California

Last brief filed in Prop 8 legal challenge

The following is a letter from the National Center For Lesbian rights with an update about the Prop 8 legal challenge.

"Our legal team has been working around the clock to meet the California Supreme Court’s expedited briefing schedule in our Prop 8 legal challenge. We missed holidays, weekends, and plenty of sleep, but the hard work paid off and we just filed our final brief (pdf) in the case.

Today’s brief highlights the extraordinary breadth of support for our argument that Proposition 8 is invalid. Those supporting our argument represent the full gamut of California’s and the nation’s civil rights organizations and legal scholars, as well as California legislators, local governments, bar associations, business interests, labor unions, and religious groups. A total of 43 friend-of-the-court briefs were filed in our favor.

Many of the nation’s leading legal scholars agree that Proposition 8 is invalid because it seeks to eliminate a fundamental right only for a targeted minority, which cannot be done through the initiative process. Professors from the many universities and law schools in California and across the country authored briefs urging invalidation of Proposition 8, including scholars from Harvard University, Stanford University, Yale University, University of California (Berkeley, Los Angeles, Hastings, Davis, Irvine), University of Southern California, University of Pennsylvania, Rutgers University, University of San Francisco, Loyola Law School, Santa Clara Law School, Chapman University, and Pepperdine University.

As you know, on May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court held that laws that treat people differently based on their sexual orientation violate the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and that same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as other Californians. Proposition 8 eliminated this fundamental right only for same-sex couples. No other ballot initiative has ever successfully changed the California Constitution to take away a right only from a targeted minority group.

Next, we wait for the Court to schedule oral argument, which could happen as soon as March. We are confident in our argument, humbled by the support of such powerful allies, and hopeful that the promise of California’s constitution will protect all Californians.

We would like to pause and thank our partner, Equality California, and co-counsel, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, the Law Office of David C. Codell, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

For up-to-the-minute updates, visit www.nclrights.org/overturn8.

In hope and solidarity,

Kate"

Another wave of legal arguments filed over California's Proposition 8

By Howard Mintz, Mercury News

Another wave of legal arguments hit the California Supreme Court on Monday in the battle over Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage.

Local governments, led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, filed their latest opposition papers to Proposition 8, describing the voter-approved initiative as a "dark moment'' in California history. The brief is an attempt to refute the legal arguments of Proposition 8 backers as the Supreme Court weighs a challenge from government officials, civil rights groups and same-sex couples who are seeking the right to marry.

The San Francisco brief sides with the unique argument raised in December by Attorney General Jerry Brown, who argues that voters did not have the authority to strip away a fundamental constitutional right when they approved Proposition 8 in November. Brown, who ordinarily would be forced to defend state law, argued in his December brief that the state Supreme Court's decision last spring striking down California's prior gay marriage ban established that fundamental right to marry.

Proposition 8 supporters, represented by former Whitewater prosecutor and Pepperdine law school dean Kenneth Starr, also responded with fresh legal arguments Monday, calling Brown's argument an attempt to "declare a constitutional revolution."

"The attorney general's theory would fundamentally alter the role of the California judiciary," Proposition 8 backers wrote. "It would, in brief, constitute the
California judiciary as the supreme overseer of the people's use of their constitution-making power."

A series of lawsuits was filed shortly after the election, challenging Proposition 8 as an invalid method of amending the California Constitution. Proposition 8 supporters insist the law is valid, and that the Supreme Court does not have the right to topple the will of the voters.

The Supreme Court has set a deadline for final briefs to be filed by late January, and could hear the case as early as March. A decision could come by early summer. The court will decide the fate of the gay marriage ban, as well as the validity of thousands of same-sex marriages that have already taken place in the past six months.

California Supreme Court takes action on Prop 8

The following information has been provided by the Judicial Council of California:

The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of Proposition 8.

The court's order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state's highest court challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

The court issued its order in three cases filed on behalf of a variety of parties, including same-sex couples who seek to enter into marriage despite the passage of Proposition 8, a same-sex couple who married in California prior to the adoption of Proposition 8, and a number of cities and counties whose officials seek to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Petitioners in each of these cases seek an order directing the relevant state officials to refrain from implementing, enforcing, or applying Proposition 8.

In response to the petitions, the Attorney General filed a preliminary opposition, in which he urged the court to assume jurisdiction over these cases to decide the important legal issues presented, but also argued that the court should not stay the operation of Proposition 8 pending the court's resolution of the issues. The proponents of Proposition 8 also responded to the petitions, seeking to intervene as formal parties in the action and also urging the court to accept the cases for decision. The court's order granted the motion to intervene filed by the proponents of Proposition 8.

In its order, the court established an expedited briefing schedule, under which briefing will be completed in January 2009 and oral argument potentially could be held as early as March 2009.

Six justices - Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Justice Marvin R. Baxter, Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Justice Ming W. Chin, Justice Carlos R. Moreno, and Justice Carol A. Corrigan - signed the court's order, although Justice Moreno indicated that he would grant the requests to stay the operation of Proposition 8 pending the court's resolution of these matters.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in the Supreme Court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8's effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8's adoption.

Legal Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Proposition 8, Should It Pass

Legal Papers Claim Initiative Procedure Cannot Be Used To Undermine the Constitution's Core Commitment To Equality For Everyone

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

SAN FRANCISCO: The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution' s core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group – lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw – it removes a protected constitutional right – here, the right to marry – not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution, " added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The groups filed the lawsuit today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.

"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Proposition 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Proposition 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place."

This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "Constitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.

In a statement issued earlier today, the groups stated their conviction, which is shared by the California Attorney General, that the state must continue to honor the marriages of the 18,000 lesbian and gay couples who have already married in California. A copy of the statement as well as the writ petition filed today is available at: www.aclu.org/lgbt, www.lambdalegal.org, and www.nclrights.org.

In addition to the ACLU, Lambda Legal and NCLR, the legal team bringing the writ also includes the Law Office of David C. Codell; Munger Tolles & Olson, LLP; and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP.

Let the Weddings Begin!

Good news on the marriage front, the California Supreme Court has denied the attempt by anti-gay marriage groups to delay same-sex marriages until the November election. So, as of June 17th, Gay & Lesbian couples throughout California will be able to receive marriage licenses.

Although this is a huge step forward, we cannot forget that the fight is not over. If the Gay Marriage initiative passes in November, it will override the Supreme Courts decision to allow gay marriage and will again create a law that only allows marriage between a man and a woman in the state of California.

It is imperative that we get the word out to voters that a "no" vote on this November anti-marriage initiative will preserve equal rights for all men and women in California, as guaranteed under the Constitution.

For more information, to volunteer, or to donate, check out Equality California's website.

Governor Schwarzenegger's Poll on Same Sex Marriage

The office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is polling reaction to the California Supreme Court decision overturning the ban on gay marriage. Most of the response they are getting is in OPPOSITION to the court action.

Your support is extremely important at this juncture, so please pick up the phone and call today. There is not a limit on the amount of times you can call, so please keep calling and voting.

To vote in support of the California Supreme Court's decision on same sex marriage:

1. call 916-445-2841
2. press 1 (for English) or 2 (for Spanish)
3. press 5 (for hot issue topics)
4. press 1 (same sex marriage)
5. press 1 (for support)

Please pass this information on to anyone you think might want to help support gay marriage.

Answers to the When, How and Where Questions about Gay Marriage in California

Now that some of the excitement over the California Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage has died down a little, I have noticed that people are starting to ask some questions, mainly, "When can my partner and I get married?" The EQCA website has created a list of FAQ (posted below) specifically for same sex couples in California who want to get married. These FAQ's can not only answer the "when" question, but many other relevant gay marriage issues as well. It is definitely worth a read...

Can same-sex couples marry in California?
Yes. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional. Beginning as soon as June 16, same-sex couples will be able to marry in California.

Can the court’s decision be appealed?
No. The California Supreme Court has the final say in cases brought under the California Constitution, like this case, and there can be no more appeals.

Does the court’s decision affect the rights of heterosexual couples?
No. The rights of heterosexual couples to marry and the rights and responsibilities of those who are married remain exactly the same. The decision simply ensures equality and fairness for same-sex couples.

Does this ruling require religious groups or clergy members to marry same-sex couples?
No. The court’s decision said the government may not discriminate against same-sex couples by barring them from civil marriage – a legal institution established and regulated by the government. Religious groups and clergy members remain free to recognize or refuse to recognize marriages within their religion as each sees fit. While some faiths do not permit same-sex couples to marry within that faith, a growing number do. As a result of the court’s decisions, same-sex couples may choose to be married by a clergy person in a welcoming community of faith or by a civil servant such as a judge or authorized deputy.

Should we get married now?
Marriage is a serious legal and personal commitment that should not be entered into lightly. Before getting married, couples should educate themselves about the legal consequences of marriage, in addition to other considerations.

Same-sex couples also face some additional considerations that heterosexual couples do not face, due to discrimination by the federal government as well as by a number of states. Deciding whether to marry is an important decision for everyone, gay or straight, but lesbian and gay couples have to be prepared for and be willing to take on those additional challenges.

A period of legal uncertainty is likely. For example, if you marry in California, you cannot be certain whether your marriage will be respected if you live in, travel to, or move to a state that has laws or constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

In addition, current federal law prohibits the federal government from recognizing marriages of same-sex couples for purposes of the many federal rights and benefits given to married heterosexual couples, such as the right to file joint federal income taxes and the right to social security benefits as a surviving spouse. Being excluded from these federal protections, and often state protections as well, is a serious hardship and can cause significant legal problems.

Important Note: Bi national couples in which one member does not have permanent legal resident status in this country and anyone serving in the U.S. military should consult with an attorney with expertise in these areas of law before getting married.

If we’re already in a registered domestic partnership in California, do we have to dissolve our domestic partnership before we can marry?
No. The California domestic partnership statutes permit an individual to be both married and in a registered domestic partnership, so long as it is to the same person. In addition, there may be legal protections that are available through domestic partnership but not through marriage. For example, some states that will not honor marriages of same-sex couples may honor domestic partnerships.

Do you have to be a California resident to marry in California?
No. There is no residency requirement to marry in California.

If my partner and I are from another state and marry in California, will our marriage be valid in our home state?
If you live in another state and get married in California, you will be legally married. However, depending on where you live, your home state may not respect your marriage. Many states have passed discriminatory marriage laws, and in those states, state and local governments likely will not respect your California marriage. But even in those states, it is highly likely that at least some private businesses and other private third parties will respect your marriage – particularly those that already recognize same-sex couples through domestic partnership or a similar system.

Marriage is a serious legal decision, and same-sex couples face additional challenges and questions because of continuing discrimination against married same-sex couples by the federal government and many states. We urge couples who are considering getting married in California to proceed with caution. Before getting married in California, you should educate yourselves about the law in your state and, if possible, consult an attorney about the best way to protect your relationship based on your circumstances.

Can we file lawsuits if our marriages are not respected in other states or by the federal government?
If you feel you have been discriminated against, please contact one of the LGBT legal organizations listed on this document. We can help you figure out what options you have to protect your rights. Some types of unfair treatment can be the basis of a lawsuit, and other times the unfairness may not be suitable for a court to address. Even when litigation is an option, it is not the only option. It is always necessary to weigh the chances of success or failure because bad results in lawsuits can cause set backs and hurt our entire community. We want to increase the chances of winning overall, so it is critical that we work together to have a carefully planned strategy. Together, we can win!

What do we have to do to marry in California?
First you need to get a marriage license from the office of the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk of any California county. You can get a license application from most counties’ websites and complete it in advance, or complete it in the county clerk’s office. Both of you must go together to the county office and present a government-issued picture ID and proof that you are over 18 years old. (If either or both is younger than 18, different procedures apply.) You’ll need to pay the license fee, which varies by county but generally is less than $100. The license will be valid for 90 days and your marriage can be performed anywhere in California. Neither a blood test nor a health certificate is required. Call ahead or visit the county’s website to learn the hours and locations of the county offices that issue licenses.

Who can marry us?
In California, clergy members, active and retired judges and court commissioners, and the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages are authorized to perform legal marriages. The Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners of Civil Marriages perform marriage ceremonies by appointment at designated county offices. There is a fee, which generally is less than $50. Call ahead or visit the county website for more information.

Any couple wishing to marry can also have a friend deputized to perform their marriage ceremony through a county “Deputy Commissioner for a Day” program. If you choose this option, you will need at least two months advance notice and the person to be deputized to perform your ceremony will have to pay a fee and visit the county office in person to be sworn in. Visit the county website to see if your county has this program. If it does not, check whether a nearby county will deputize an out-of-county resident.

The person who performs your ceremony must complete and sign your marriage license after the ceremony. In addition, at least one witness 18 years old or older must sign the marriage license.

The license then becomes your marriage certificate, which has to be returned promptly to the county for filing.

What happens if we marry in California and then wish to divorce?
The only legal way to end a marriage is to get a divorce. If you marry in California and live in California, you can divorce by filing a petition with a California court. However, if you move to another state, or if you already live in another state, getting a divorce could be difficult. Currently, the only state other than California in which same-sex married couples have an established right to divorce is Massachusetts; however, Massachusetts has a one-year residency requirement before a person can petition a Massachusetts court for a divorce. States with civil unions or comprehensive domestic partnerships, like Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, may also allow married same-sex couples to divorce, but those states also have one-year residency requirements. That means that at least one spouse must be a resident of the state for a year prior to the divorce.

Couples who are unable to obtain a divorce remain legally married. Therefore, being unable to divorce may cause serious legal problems and complications for same-sex couples who find themselves in this situation.

Could right-wing forces take away the freedom to marry at the ballot box in California?
Yes. Because the court based its decision on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, right-wing groups are trying to amend our state Constitution to eliminate these fundamental constitutional protections and take away the basis for the decision.

These groups, which have received significant funding from out-of-state right-wing organizations, are placing an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that will ask voters to amend the California constitution to reverse the court’s decision and deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.

Already, many state leaders are expressing their opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. For example, in a public statement on April 11, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban gay and lesbian couples from marriage was “a waste of time,” adding “I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen.”

We agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that these outsiders are wasting their time and money trying to turn California into a state that would use its Constitution to take away civil rights and hurt families. But it will take every one of us to stop this anti-family initiative. For more information about how to get involved, contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com.

What can we do to help preserve the freedom to marry we have just won?
We urge you to get involved today! For more information about how you can help, please contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com. Now that we have won this victory, all residents of California are better off, because strengthening any group of families makes stronger communities for everyone. All people who value families and fairness have a stake in preserving the freedom to marry for lesbian and gay couples. We cannot afford to wait, please act now.

California Supreme court overturns gay marriage ban

AP News reports that today the California Supreme Court has overturned the gay marriage ban, making Califonia the second state in the US to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices' 4-3 decision states that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Today's ruling by the Republican-dominated court affects more than 100,000 same-sex couples in the state, about a quarter of whom have children, according to U.S. census figures. It came after high courts in New York, Washington and New Jersey refused to extend marriage rights to gay couples. Only Massachusetts' top court has ruled in favor of permitting gays to wed.

Gay rights lawyers won an early victory in the dispute when a San Francisco trial judge decided in 2005 that gays should be permitted to wed. An appeals court later overturned that decision on a 2-1 vote, ruling that only the Legislature or the voters could change California's traditional definition of marriage.

Lawyers in favor of same-sex marriage argued that the law discriminated on the basis of both gender and sexual orientation.

Opponents countered that the ban was gender-neutral, barring both women and men from marrying members of their own sex. They also argued that people could be treated differently because of their sexual orientation if there was a rational basis for it.

In 2000, 61% of California voters approved Proposition 22, which said that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

Since the ballot measure, California has passed one of the strongest domestic partnership laws in the country, giving registered same-sex couples many of the rights of married people, but not all.

Before today's ruling, gay rights lawyers predicted that a victory in the California Supreme Court would help them defeat the proposed constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, which the lawyers expect to qualify for the November ballot.


The above information is from AP News and LA Times.

Rumor or Fact: The California Supreme Court is Likely to Approve Gay Marriage

On April 15th, Ryan J. Davis of the Huffington Post reported some pretty interesting and compelling news about the California Supreme Court's decision on Gay Marriage.

"The fight for gay marriage in California has been a tough one during the last decade. In 2000, Proposition 22 was passed by 62% of the state's voters, limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Its since been sent to the State's Supreme Court. Gov. Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed Gay Marriage Bills sent to him by the California Legislature, the second as recently as last year. "He will uphold whatever the court decides," Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said after the bill's original passing.

Fearing the court's decision, the Family Research council has launched a ballot initiative for a Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage in California. "After oral arguments in the case, it appears very likely that the majority of judges on California's highest court will rule against the current meaning of marriage, opening up God's ordained institution to same-sex couples," they said in a March fundraising email.

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.

Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment, "I will always be there to fight against that," he said to huge applause this weekend at a Log Cabin Republican Convention in San Diego. He went so far as to call the initiative a "waste of time" and acknowledge that the people of California are, "much further along on that issue." The latest Field Poll shows only 51% of Californians oppose full gay marriage, an 11 point drop since 2000.

There seems little doubt that California is moving toward full gay marriage equality."

One can only hope that this information is not just a rumor and that the California Supreme Court will choose to follow the lead of the Massachusetts Supreme Court by declaring that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.