glbtq: an encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender & queer culture
home
arts
literature
social sciences
special features
discussion
about glbtq
   search
  
 
   Encyclopedia
   Discussion
 
 

   member name
  
   password
  
 
   
   Forgot Your Password?  
   
Not a Member Yet?  
   
JOIN TODAY. IT'S FREE!

 
  Advertising Opportunities
  Permissions & Licensing
  Terms of Service
  Privacy Policy
  Copyright

 

 

 

 

 
social sciences

Alpha Index:  A-B  C-F  G-K  L-Q  R-S  T-Z

Subjects:  A-E  F-L  M-Z

     
Same-Sex Marriage  
 
page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  

In 2007, significant progress in achieving something approaching equality for same-sex couples was made in a few states, including especially New Hampshire and Oregon.

The New Hampshire legislature adopted civil unions, similar to those provided by Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Oregon opted for domestic partnerships similar to those in California. The Oregon domestic partnership law went into effect in 2008.

Sponsor Message.

Domestic Partnerships in California

In the last five years, the California legislature has passed a series of laws that add a growing number of important rights and responsibilities to its domestic partnership law.

In 2003, Governor Gray Davis signed a domestic partnership law, which took effect January 1, 2005. It is essentially equivalent to Vermont's civil union law and extends almost all marital benefits and responsibilities to couples in a domestic partnership. Since then additional rights have been added to the domestic partnership, which now makes domestic partnership equivalent to marriage in terms of the rights and responsibilities it accords, if not necessarily in terms of the respect and dignity conferred by the name "domestic partnership" as opposed to "marriage."

In September 2005, the California Assembly made history by becoming the first legislature in the country to pass a bill authorizing same-sex marriage. Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed this bill, as he did a 2007 bill also authorizing marriage equality, saying that he preferred to let the California Supreme Court decide the issue. This is ironic since in every state where a same-sex marriage case has been filed, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that the legislature should decide the issue, not the courts.

Victory in California

On February 12, 2004, San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that the city would begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Literally overnight thousands of same-sex couples converged on city hall for their licenses. Riveting footage of couples waiting in line for hours and having their unions blessed on the steps of city hall brought national and international attention. These marriages, unfortunately, were soon nullified by the California Supreme Court, which did not at that time address the substantive question of the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage but ruled that Mayor Newsom lacked the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

In the litigation that followed the San Francisco marriages, advocates for same-sex marriage won an impressive victory at the trial court, which ruled that the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. This decision, however, was reversed by the California Court of Appeals.

On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. The Court struck down two state laws that banned same-sex marriage and declared that the domestic partnership law was not sufficient.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Ronald George declared that the right to marriage is a fundamental right that must be accorded to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. “The right to marry,” he wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

Basing its ruling on the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the Court also adopted a new standard of review in determining claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Rather than the "rational basis" test, the Court ruled that claims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation require "strict scrutiny."

The ruling by the widely respected California Supreme Court is of enormous significance. Not only is California the largest of the American states, containing more than ten per cent of the nation's population, but it is a trend-setter. Other states are likely to follow California's lead.

Despite pleas from opponents of same-sex marriage and the attorneys general of eleven states, the Court refused to delay the effect of its decision, so on June 17, 2008, same-sex couples began marrying in California. Since California has no residency requirement, couples from out-of-state are also eligible to marry in the state.

It may, however, be a struggle to maintain the victory. Opponents of same-sex marriage have succeeded in placing on the November 2008 ballot a constitutional amendment that would override the Court's decision and ban same-sex marriage.

  <previous page   page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   next page>  
    
 interact  
   
Tell a Friend about this Article
 
Join the Discussion
 
 find 
   
Related Entries
 
More Entries by this contributor
 
A Bibliography on this Topic

 
Citation Information
 
More Entries about Social Sciences
 
 
 
  feedback  
   
Tell us what you think of glbtq
 
Send a
Suggestion
 
Report an Offensive Ad
 
 
 
spacer
Popular Topics:

The Arts

 
Film Actors: Gay Male
Film Actors: Gay Male


Film Actors: Lesbian
Film Actors: Lesbian


Erotic and Pornographic Art: Lesbian


Erotic and Pornographic Art: Gay Male
Erotic and Pornographic Art: Gay Male


Photography: Gay Male, Pre-Stonewall
Photography: Gay Male, Pre-Stonewall


Louganis, Greg


Subjects of the Visual Arts: Nude Females
Subjects of the Visual Arts: Nude Females


Bell, Andy
Bell, Andy


American Art: Gay Male, 1900-1969
American Art: Gay Male, 1900-1969


Cadinot, Jean-Daniel
Cadinot, Jean-Daniel

 
 


 

 

This Entry Copyright © 2004, glbtq, inc.

www.glbtq.com is produced by glbtq, Inc., 1130 West Adams Street, Chicago, IL   60607 glbtq™ and its logo are trademarks of glbtq, Inc.
This site and its contents Copyright © 2002-2006, glbtq, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
Your use of this site indicates that you accept its Terms of Service.