Phyllis Lyon (L) and Del Martin (R) celebrate their 2004 marriage, which was later declared illegal (File picture) Ms Lyon's (L) marriage to Ms Martin (R) in 2004 was declared illegal
Homosexual couples in California are set to be granted marriage licenses for the first time.
The move follows a decision last month by the state Supreme Court to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage.
One of the first to exchange vows will be veteran gay-rights campaigners Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 83, who have been together for 56 years.
California voters will be asked in a November referendum whether the ban should be reinstated.
First to wed
San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, who has been a prominent advocate of same-sex marriage, will officiate at the wedding of Ms Martin and Ms Lyon.
It was Mr Newsom's 2004 decision to issue marriage licenses to gay couples - including Ms Lyon and Ms Martin - which began the long drawn-out political and legal battle that led eventually to the California Supreme Court's ruling last month.
The more people see their friends and family get married, the more they will be comfortable with the idea Jeff Kors Gay rights activist
A referendum in 2000 approved a law specifying that marriage in California could only be between a man and a woman.
The 2004 marriage ceremonies were a direct challenge to this law, and were ruled illegal by judges.
But civil rights campaigners appealed against the ruling, and their arguments were accepted by the San Francisco Superior Court.
And although the lower court's ruling was overturned by the California Court of Appeal in 2006, this ruling was itself reversed last month by the state's Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, state legislators approved a law allowing same-sex marriages, but it was vetoed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said that the courts should decide the issue.
'Tight election'
Opponents of same-sex unions have now gathered enough signatures to put another law outlawing gay marriage before California voters in a referendum scheduled for this November.
But large numbers of gay couples - from across the US - are expected to get married in California before that time, partly in the hope that voters will be less inclined to vote for the law if it would mean splitting up married couples.
"It's going to be a very tight election come November," said Jeff Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.
"The more people see their friends and family get married, the more they will be comfortable with the idea."
Public opinion in California appears to be more favourable to gay marriage than was the case when the law banning it was passed in 2000.
A recent poll indicated that 52% of Californians supported same-sex marriages, with 41% opposed.
posted
Not that I am against it at all...but democratically speaking how can 1 supreme court persons' vote in a 9 person panel overturn "legally" what 70% something of California voters deemed to be illegal? What's fair is fair, it's still a democratic society the last time I checked.That was also underhanded what Arnold did,it truly is up to the voters,{unfortunatly} as I believe in equal rights for everyone.
--------------------
Join thousands of our fans on Twitter @Norcalfeetdotco Posts: 18324 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
bluetoelover
unregistered
posted
Makes you wonder why they bothered holding the vote at all if they were just going to overturn it anyways... PR stunt gone wrong??
IP: Logged |
posted
I think the most important question here is what business is it of anyone else to legislate people's personal relationships. If something does not affect you it simply isn't your business to meddle with it
Societies functional relationship to a gay couple living together is identical to that of a married couple living together with the exception of a few mundane details. I have never in all of this controversy heard a reasonable argument against them being allowed to call it a marriage provided that society at large is willing to recognize any kind of marriage at all.
If they're paying taxes then they're pulling their own weight as an American citizen and should be able to reap the benefits that all others do. The kind of consensual getting-off that a person prefers isn't anyone else's business.
Imagine not being allowed to share benefits with your spouse if it's their feet that get you off. Imagine a different tax bracket for people who like anal sex. Imagine being denied a job because of the frequency of which you masturbate at home. It's all ludicrous, but no more than saying gay people can't get married.
Posts: 639 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind that gay people are allowed to marry. Hell, let them be as miserable as everyone else.
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously, the conservatives are always railing against gay marriage. Well, what better way to discourage it than letting them get married? Once they see what its like, they won't be keen on going forward with it.
*Keep in mind that this is my hangover talking. I don't mind gay people getting married at all, but I think that fifth of Cuervo I took in last night is making me more spiteful and off-color than I usually am.*
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am conservative. I believe in marriage of a man and woman. But... I just cant find it in me to believe if two people love each other- gay or not, that they shouldnt have the right in our country to do it legally.
Still ultra conservative... but... realistic and accepting.
Posts: 1470 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
honestly, im all for it. i would put telling people that i like feet, in the same boat as people coming out the closet. in my case, a female feet closet. so yeah, i (and you) have no right to say this is wrong. it would be like saying liking feet is wrong.
-------------------- "Nina, this is my house, you work for me, and I want to suck your toes." -Big Trouble (2002) Posts: 1855 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks as though the ban could pass now.Interestingly Google came out against the ban as a company recently.Though i am not too big on treating corporations like an individual,i can still see how it affects their employees so i guess things like that are positive.From what i gather it is mostly mormon money that is helping fuel the opposition to gay marriage in the state which i really find disgusting.
posted
The conservative point of view (which is rarely even touched on in this forum) is:
When will we stop catering to these tiny sections of the population? What's next if you allow gay marriage? Will child molesters one day form an alliance and start screaming for their rights? Will people "marry" each other just to receive health insurance and other benefits saved for married couples? Will polygamy become accepted? What about all the study's done that say children are WAY better off when there is a MAN and a WOMAN in the household? Just throw this information out the door? Do you want to teach children (starting in kindergarden) that it's ok to have sex with either sex?
More than half of the country DOES NOT support gay marriage. The country is not ready for this yet.
Now bring on the nastiness you libs...
Posts: 238 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's as simple as this: a basic right is being withheld from an entire group of Americans, in this case marriage. Denying them that right is quite frankly, un-American.
And comparing gay marriage to child molesters is ridiculous and you know it. It'd be like me comparing evangelicals to Islamic terrorists, simply because both groups share fringe religious views.
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well firstly, I didn't COMPARE the two. I simply said "what's next?" What's the logical line of progression?
And secondly....."It's as simple as this: a basic right is being withheld from an entire group of Americans,etc.."
My view is if we start changing laws for every minority, for every small group of people who wants their "rights," for every organization that stands up and makes a fuss, then what could possibly be left of our great country? It would crumble.
posted
There's a precedent for changing laws for minorities you know. Ever heard of the civil rights movement?
You can mince words all you want, but the fact remains that marriage between two people who love each other shouldn't be denied to anyone, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation. This is supposed to be a free country, right? Being gay is not against the law, unlike child molestation, which is clearly the comparison, or "logical line of progression" as you attempted to put it.
Posts: 2681 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Thumbs Up]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
