From Deseret News archives:

California's top court legalizes gay marriage

Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:51 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
SAN FRANCISCO — California's Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation's biggest state can marry — a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after — religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. She added: "We're going to get married. No Tupperware, please."

A crowd of people raised their fists in triumph inside City Hall, and people wrapped themselves in the rainbow-colored gay-pride flag outside the courthouse. In the Castro, the historic center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt wept as he watched the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life. This is a life-affirming moment," he said.

By the afternoon, gay and lesbian couples had already started lining up at San Francisco City Hall to make appointments to get marriage licenses. In West Hollywood, supporters were planning to serve "wedding cake" at an evening celebration.

Story continues below
James Dobson, chairman of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, called the ruling an "outrage."

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny," he said in an e-mail statement.

In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough.

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority in ringing language that delighted gay rights activists.

Recent comments

Believe it or not, if a majority of constituents (voters) want gay...

Gus | May 15, 2008 at 11:09 p.m.

Outrageous! The voters had clearly already spoken and the judges step...

sickened | May 15, 2008 at 9:23 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

RSL heads to MLS title game

Can't believe it! Awesome win. And so begins our collection of...

Mike, I like your analysis and agree with you for the most part. I don't...

We protected democracy in Utah

>So, is it the "system" that denies third-party candidates a shot at elected...

Letters: 2 words - an eternity

Heard all the same arguments in the 50's about interracial marriage. How did...

Or is it judging another? If it were any other type of accomplishment, we...

I would like to see the MWC become stronger in basketball. Boise wouldn't...

MWC expand? Get rid of deadweight

I think Tulsa would be a good fit. Their basketball program has won more...

Want to get me back downtown? You could start with free and convenient...

Obama seeking a balance in China

Barack Hussein and Johnny boy- two peas in a pod.

you are a paranoid neurotic.

Advertisements
Advertisement