Initiative to ban same-sex marriage in California qualifies for ballot

sfgate_get_fprefs();

(06-02) 19:24 PDT Capital Of Golden State - --

A constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in California was placed on the Nov. Four ballot Monday, kick-starting somes election battle that volition have got reverberations across the nation.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen's enfranchisement of the enterprise measure, which damages the state Fundamental Law to restrict matrimony to a labor union "between a adult male and a woman," come ups as no surprise to either side of the same-sex matrimony issue.

When angels of the initiative, who needed 694,354 valid signatures to do the ballot, turned in more than than 1.1 million signatures, the lone inquiry was when the functionary enfranchisement would come.

"We're not surprised by this at all and have got been getting ready to run a very aggressive campaign," said Steve Smith, a senior political political campaign adviser to the Equality for All effort, which will seek to overcome the initiative. "This (initiative) inquires Golden State electors to take away a cardinal right from same-sex couples and we don't believe they are willing to make that."

Signatures for the projected amendment were filed with county clerks across the state in late April, hebdomads before the state Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, a ballot measurement that also banned same-sex matrimony and passed with 61 percentage of the ballot in 2000. If the new amendment is passed, it will turn over the state court's ruling.

Opponents of same-sex matrimony already are arguing that the tribunal should not have got got overturned the ballot of the people on same-sex matrimony and have said they are confident that their autumn political campaign will pull support not only from electors in Golden State but from citizens across the nation.

California functionaries program to get issuing matrimony licences to same-sex couples beginning June 17. Opponents of the court's 4-3 determination have got called on the tribunal to detain that action until after the November election, but no determination on that petition have been made.

A Field Poll released last hebdomad showed that for the first clip in 30 old age of polling on the cheery matrimony question, a bulk of Californians now back up same-sex marriage and a bigger per centum of electors are unwilling to turn over the state Supreme Court decision.

The same-sex matrimony prohibition was one of four measurements approved for the ballot Monday, along with two dealing with criminal justness substances and a 3rd scene new regulations for renewable energy. That conveys the figure of measurements on the November ballot to eight, with three others awaiting certification.

E-mail Toilet Wildermuth at

Polk Co. files response in same-sex marriage case

DES MOINES, Ioway (AP) -- The James Polk County attorney's business business office states in new written documents that a lawsuit challenging the state's same-sex matrimony prohibition is trying to change the manner populace policy is made.The lawsuit have got led to a series of filings in which the county attorney's office and a New York-based cheery rights organisation have answered one another's legal arguments.Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in 2005 on behalf of six cheery and gay woman couples from Ioway who were denied matrimony licenses, as well as three of the couples' children. It name calling former James James Polk County recording equipment and registrar Timothy Brien.The lawsuit prompted a opinion last August by Polk County District Court Judge Henry Martin Robert Hanson, who said the state law allowing matrimony only between a adult male and a adult female go againsts the constitutional rights of owed procedure and equal protection.The next day, Hanson stayed the decision, and the lawsuit is now before the Ioway Supreme Court.Challengers of the same-sex matrimony prohibition postulate it go againsts gays' rights. Opponents said the issue should be left up to the Legislature to do up one's mind -- not the courts.In its answer legal little filed on Tuesday, the county attorney's business office said that Lambda Legal seeks to have got got the judicial subdivision set populace policy, instead of leaving it to lawmakers."Plaintiffs seek to have this tribunal set up that the tribunals and not the Legislature should make public policy for the State of Ioway by redefining matrimony to be something totally different from what it have ever seen," the little said.Among its arguments, the brief criticises Lambda Legal's analogy between homosexuals seeking the right to get married and Iowa's judicial history of guaranteeing rights for achromatic Americans. The little said other tribunals have got rejected similar arguments."This is because the histories of achromatic Americans simply are not remotely the same as plaintiffs," the little said. "The fundamental laws of the United States and the state of Ioway make not advert homosexuality."The little also reasons that the tribunal erred in rejecting some of the county's witnessers who were to have got testified about the nature of matrimony and the best state of affairs in which to raise children. It said the witnessers should be allowed because their testimony is something the Legislature could believe as portion of statements to continue procreative marriage, which it called "a rational footing for the (Iowa) law."The county attorney's business office said Lambda Legal also tried to asseverate that the county's statements are simply based on morals."Plaintiffs mistake culture, history and spiritual beliefs," the little said. "Defendant (Brien) have addressed that his witnessers testified from historical and anthropological research, not a substance of faith."Camilla Taylor, the Lambda Legal lawyer representing the same-sex couples, issued a statement about the county's brief."We've heard all of these statements before, yet James Polk County have still given no valid justification for excluding same-sex couples and their children from marriage," she said.Oral statements will be scheduled by the Ioway Supreme Court in coming months, but a determination this twelvemonth is unlikely.

MAKING HISTORY | SAME-SEX MARRIAGE DECISION / THE COURT

sfgate_get_fprefs();

(05-15) 12:40 PDT SAN FRANCISCO --
The seven justnesses on the Golden State Supreme Court and how they voted in Thursday's opinion legalizing same-sex marriage:

Chief Justice Ronald George, 68, a moderate Republican appointive by Gov. Pete Harriet Wilson in 1991. He wrote the 4-3 sentiment dramatic down the state prohibition on same-sex marriage, which he said go againsts the "fundamental constitutional right to constitute a household relationship."

Justice James Joyce Kennard, 67, a Republican appointive by Gov. Saint George Deukmejian in 1989. She is considered a moderate and joined the bulk opinion.

Justice Kathryn Batch Werdegar, 72, a Republican appointive by Harriet Wilson in 1994. She is considered a moderate and was portion of the bulk in the ruling.

Justice Carlos Moreno, 59, the court's lone Democratic appointee, named to the bench by Gov. Gray Davys in 2001. He is considered a moderate and voted with the majority.

Justice Marvin Baxter, 68, a Republican appointive by Deukmejian in 1990. He is considered a conservative and wrote a dissentient sentiment that accused the tribunal of substituting "its ain societal policy positions for those expressed by the people."

Justice Ming Dynasty Chin, 65, a Republican appointive by Harriet Wilson in 1996. He is considered a conservative and joined Baxter's dissentient opinion.

Justice Carol Corrigan, 59, a moderate Republican appointive by Gov. Matthew Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005. Her separate dissent said that the tribunal should not invalidate the prohibition but that "Californians should let our cheery and gay woman neighbours to name their labor unions marriages."

E-mail Demian Bulwa at .

Court appears split on same-sex marriage

sfgate_get_fprefs();

The dissentious issue of same-sex matrimony appeared to divide the Golden State Supreme Court down the center Tuesday as the justnesses agonized over inquiries of tradition, favoritism and democratic authorities during a 3 1/2-hour hearing.

It have been almost four old age since the tribunal annulled the wedding ceremonies at San Francisco City Hallway of nearly 4,000 same-sex couples without deciding the constitutionality of the state law that prevented them from legally marrying.

The law is being challenged in four lawsuits by 23 couples and the metropolis of San Francisco, who reason that it represents favoritism - based on both grammatical gender and sexual orientation - and go againsts the cardinal right under the Golden State Fundamental Law to get married the spouse of one's choice.

But at Tuesday's hearing in San Francisco, a state lawyer argued that Golden State have met its duty to handle homosexuals and gay women equally, through laws that grant same-sex domestic spouses virtually the same rights as hubbies and wives, and is not discriminating by defining matrimony as the labor union of a adult male and a woman.

The state is entitled to "adhere to the common and traditional footing of marriage, while at the same clip providing all the rights and benefits associated with marriage" to same-sex partners, said Deputy Lawyer General Saint Christopher Krueger.

But Justice Carlos Moreno said the domestic spouse law, despite its benefits, still go forths same-sex couples in a separate position against their will.

"Are you saying that separate is equal here?" Moreno asked Krueger. Incredulity on tradition

Justice James Joyce Kennard commented acerbically on Krueger's supplication of tradition as a footing for the matrimony law, saying state laws once perpetuated a "long-standing tradition ... of treating a adult female as the place of her husband." And Head Justice Ronald Saint George said laws banning interracial matrimony also could have got been described as traditional before California's high tribunal overturned a crossbreeding law in 1948, the first such as opinion in the nation.

Other justices, however, said the definition of matrimony is an issue for state lawmakers and for the voters, who in 2000 approved Proposition 22, reaffirming the 1977 law that defined matrimony as the labor union of a adult male and a woman. Gov. Matthew Arnold Schwarzenegger cited Prop. 22 in twice vetoing measures that sought to legalize same-sex marriage.

"California is in the procedure of evolving its understanding" of marriage, said Justice Carol Corrigan. "Is it for this tribunal to decide, or is it for the people of Golden State to decide?"
Werdegar could be swing

Justices Ming Dynasty Chin and Marvin Baxter made similar comments. The result could be decided by Justice Kathryn Batch Werdegar, who have written some of the court's major civil rights opinions - including one that needed a landlady to lease an flat to an unmarried couple - but who seemed troubled Tuesday by the function that complainants were asking the tribunal to play.

When one recommend of same-sex matrimony argued that the clip have arrived for a ground-breaking regnant on the constitutional rights of homosexuals and lesbians, Werdegar asked, "Why is this the minute of truth, as opposing to 10 old age from now?"

She also observed that any opinion the tribunal issues could be overturned by the voters. Groups of spiritual conservativists already are circulating ballot measurements that would travel beyond Prop. 22 and amend the state Fundamental Law to ban same-sex marriage. One of the projected enterprises would also outlaw matrimonial benefits like those the state have granted to domestic partners.

The court's determination is owed within 90 days.

In ambitious the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, San Francisco's lawyer, Head Deputy City Lawyer Therese Stewart, argued that the difference between domestic partnership and matrimony is more than than nomenclature.

Although domestic partners have got the same rights as spouses to property, fiscal support and kid detention under Golden State law, Jimmy Stewart said, they miss the societal position of marriage, which "conveys loyalty and familiarity and commitment."

Chin was unmoved. "Doesn't that elevate rhetoric over reality?" he asked. Interracial marriage

The justnesses also had different positions of the 1948 opinion that overturned California's prohibition on interracial matrimony and in the procedure declared that people have got a cardinal right to get married their chosen partner.

Baxter said the court's statement must be understood "in the linguistic context of matrimony as traditionally defined," between a adult male and a woman.

But Saint George said the 1948 tribunal had spoken of "the right to fall in with the individual of one's choice" without expressly limiting that rule to interracial or male-female marriages. When Krueger, the state's lawyer, argued that the two lawsuits differ because the prohibition on interracial matrimony was motivated by bigotry, Saint George said the current law also "defines matrimony by whom it excludes."

The head justness invoked another state Supreme Court opinion - a 1966 determination forbiddance voter-permitted racial favoritism in lodging gross sales - in support of the rule that the tribunal can overrule the volition of the people when cardinal justness is at stake. Private groupings weigh in

The tribunal also heard from private organisations opposing same-sex marriage, which argued that the definition of matrimony is so firmly entrenched in the law, by history and tradition, that Judges have got no powerfulness to change it. They also contended that broadening the marriage law would weaken matrimony.

If same-sex matrimony were legalized, "I believe it would sabotage opposite-sex marriage," said lawyer Mathew Staver, representing the Political Campaign for Golden State Families.

Glen Lavy, an lawyer for the Prop. 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the matrimony law doesn't discriminating against homosexuals and lesbians, who are free to get married as long as they don't get married person of the same sex.

He also said the intent of state-sanctioned matrimony is to modulate reproduction by opposite-sex couples, an averment that drew disbelieving responses from respective justices. Corrigan suggested Lavy's principle would let the state to forbid matrimony between couples who were not able or unwilling to have got children.

The legal proceeding are titled In rhenium Marriage Cases, S147999.

What they said at state Supreme Court hearing

"Same-sex couples have got come up here today to praise marriage, not to bury it. (They) yearn for the privateness and regard that lone matrimony can convey them."

Attorney Claude Shannon Coiner of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, representing 15 same-sex couples

The state law "defines matrimony by whom it excludes."

Chief Justice Ronald George

"Is it for this tribunal to make up one's mind or is it for the people of Golden State to decide?"

Justice Carol Corrigan

"Why is this the minute of truth as opposing to 10 old age from now?"

Justice Kathryn Batch Werdegar

"We submit that when the state is acting so aggressively to protect the rights of domestic spouses and families, it's not irrational to keep the definition of matrimony that have stood the diagnostic test of time."

Deputy Lawyer General Saint Christopher Krueger, defending the state's matrimony law

"Are you saying that separate is equal here?"

Justice Carlos Moreno, questioning Krueger

"They are allowed to marry, but they are not allowed to constitute a same-sex couple and phone call it marriage."

Attorney Glen Lavy, representing the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Educational Fund, arguing that the current matrimony law makes not discriminating against homosexuals and lesbians

"Words matter. Name Calling matter."

San Francisco Head Deputy City Lawyer Therese Stewart, arguing for the importance of defining a same-sex human relationship as marriage

E-mail British Shilling Egelko at .

Nigeria: Human Rights Watch Accuses Country of Rights Violation - AllAfrica.com

Muhammad AbubakarBauchi

Human Rights Watch, planetary rights watch domestic dog based in the United Kingdom have written to the Nigerian authorities urging it to step in in the lawsuit against 18 male people the Sharia Court in Bauchi is charging for indecent dressing and organizing same sexual activity matrimonies as the state is a signer to conventions against such as charges.

The 18 people were sometime last twelvemonth arrested in a hotel in Yelwa, dressed in ladies' garbs and alleged to be organizing a wedding ceremony among them. Both actions, dressing in an garb meant for the antonym sexual activity and same sexual activity marriage, are against the Muslim Sharia Law which the state practices.

The missive signed by the manager in complaint of the protection of the rights of gays, gay women and bi-sexual of the Person Rights Watch, Mr. George C. Scott Long said sensational and charging the people to tribunal violated their human rights, including their rights to free association.

According to the letter, which was addressed to the Federal Soldier Government through the Curate of Justice and copied to the Bauchi State governor reminded the authorities that it was a signer to two conventions on civil and political rights as well as the human and people's rights of its citizens.

The letter, which was tendered before the tribunal last hebdomad before it adjourned sitting indefinitely, drew the attending of authorities to the charter it signed on International Convention on Civil and Political Rights in 1993 and the African Charter on Person Rights in 1983, both of which let for people or groupings to have got free associations, saying arresting and charging the people as done by the Sharia Court in Bauchi contravenes these agreements.

The prosecution counsel, Yusuf Adamu who tendered the missive before the tribunal and said he could not give transcripts to newsmen as "it is an functionary written document not meant for circulation", said the 18 people were being charged for indecent dressing and organizing same sexual activity wedding.

The Defense Mechanism Counsel, Mr. Ralph Monye however expressed daze over the determination of the tribunal to adjourn the lawsuit without allowing him to see the content of the letter.

Relevant Links

Meanwhile, the state governor, Malam Isa Yuguda have directed the state ministry of justness to digest the missive and advice authorities on appropriate action to take on it before the adjacent sitting of the court.

The first and 2nd posings on the lawsuit last twelvemonth before the 18 people were granted bail bond were disrupted by mobs, necessitating subsequent trials to be held in secret and under heavy security.

The rights watch had maintained in the missive that it was fair in its work as it had intervened and fought for the rights of Muslims in some states by protecting the rights of Moslem women to have on hijab.