Friday, May 16, 2008

California Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage  

2 comments
MAJOR VICTORY: California's Supreme Court has ruled the ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional!

This is huge. California is arguably the most influential high state court in America. Hopefully now, other states will follow California and Massachusetts's examples.

But of course, people who want to keep gays and lesbians as second-class citizens are taking steps to oppose the decision. They have already gotten enough signatures to put an initiative on the November ballot that would overrule the decision.

Get involved to fight against opponents of equality. We need to hold onto this historic decision. Visit the ACLU's GLBT project: Get Busy Get Equal.

In the words of the ACLU GLBT director Matt Cole: "how sweet it is."

What next?

You can also bookmark this post using your favorite bookmarking service:

Related Posts by Categories



2 comments: to “ California Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage


  • May 16, 2008 at 2:58 PM  

    I think a really important part of this decision is the fact that California's court is vastly republican.

    It shows that the world is changing, and that just because someone is a republican does not mean they're a super conservative homophobic asshole.

    Right now politics are so polarized. Like you can only be super liberal or super conservative. But that's not the way it should be.

    As a super liberal person, it's really great to see something like this. Hopefully it's a step towards bridging the huge gap between liberals and conservatives.


  • May 16, 2008 at 7:37 PM  

    I agree with Katie, and this is the way it should be as judges and justices are supposed to be fair and non-biased regardless of their personal beliefs or who appointed them.

    I was so thrilled to read California Chief Justice Ronald George's statement that though historically marriage has been between a man and a women, “Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right.“

    The decision took the politics out of the decision and based it on law and constitutional rights, as a court should.