Pope restates gay marriage ban after California vote

Fri May 16, 2008 5:51pm BST

By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church's position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.

Benedict made no mention of the California decision in his speech to family groups from throughout Europe, but stressed the Church's position several times.

"The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions," he said.

The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, "founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life".

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages in a major victory for gay rights advocates that will allow homosexual couples to marry in the most populous U.S. state.

Last year, Italy's powerful Catholic Church successfully campaigned against a law proposed by the previous centre-left government that would have given more rights to gay and unmarried couples.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not sinful but homosexual acts are, and is opposed to gays being allowed to adopt children.

The California court found laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are at odds with rights guaranteed by the state's constitution. Continued...

U.S. President George W. Bush, who is opposed to gay marriage, prayed "for the family" with the pope at the White House last month during the pontiff's visit there.

Last year, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, made headlines with comments that critics said equated homosexuality with incest and paedophilia.

After he made the comments -- which Bagnasco said were misunderstood -- graffiti reading "Shame" and "Watch Out Bagnasco" appeared on the door of the cathedral in northern Genoa, where Bagnasco is archbishop.

The pope, who backed Bagnasco, will visit Genoa his weekend.

Opponents of gay marriage in the United States vowed to contest the ruling with a state-wide ballot measure for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.

(Editing by Catherine Evans)

Reference Source

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban



Stuart Gaffney, left, and John Lewis reacted to the California Supreme Court decision in San Francisco. More Photos


By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: May 16, 2008


The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling 60 years ago that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, would make California the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages.

The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days unless the court grants a stay, was greeted with celebrations at San Francisco City Hall, where thousands of same-sex marriages were thrown out by the courts four years ago.

It was denounced by religious and conservative groups that promised to support an initiative proposed for the November ballot that would amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages and overturn the decision.

Same-sex marriage has been a highly contentious issue in presidential and Congressional elections, but it was not immediately clear what role the ruling would have this year. The Democratic and Republican candidates for president have all said they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but Republicans could use a surge in same-sex marriages in the most populous state to invigorate conservative voters.

Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of marriage, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority, the state cannot limit its availability to opposite-sex couples.

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice George wrote, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

Supporters of same-sex marriage called the ruling a milestone.

“This decision will give Americans the lived experience that ending exclusion from marriage helps families and harms no one,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, who noted that same-sex marriages were legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain.

Opponents said they expected the proposed ballot initiative, which has been submitted to election officials with more than one million signatures, to pass in November.

“The court was wrong from top to bottom on this one,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “The court brushed aside the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition.”

About 110,000 same-sex couples live in California, according to census data. The state has a strong domestic partnership law that gives couples who register nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage.

A majority of the justices said that was not enough.

The court left open the possibility that the Legislature could use a term other than “marriage” to denote state-sanctioned unions, so long as that term was used across the board for opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

The ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman. The question before the court was whether those laws violated provisions of the state’s Constitution protecting equality and fundamental rights.

Mathew D. Staver, a lawyer with Liberty Counsel, a public interest firm that defends traditional marriage, said it would ask the court to stay its decision until the November election, meaning that the decision could be overturned before becoming effective.

“It would only be logical” to grant a stay, Mr. Staver said, given the confusion that would arise if same-sex marriages were available for a few months.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a statement that he respected the ruling and did not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the majority should have deferred to the Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage, particularly given the increased legal protections for same-sex couples enacted in recent years.

“But a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter wrote, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.”

Also dissenting, Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But Justice Corrigan said the courts should allow the political process to address the question.

“We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” she wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”

The Supreme Court was the first state high court to strike down a law barring interracial marriage, in a 1948 decision called Perez v. Sharp. The vote in Perez, like the one in Thursday’s decision, was 4 to 3. The United States Supreme Court did not follow suit until 1967.

At present, six of the seven justices on the California court, including all the dissenters, were appointed by Republican governors.

The decision was rooted in two rationales, and both drew on the Perez case.

The first was that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.

“The right to marry,” Chief Justice George 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.”

Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” he continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.

In a second rationale from the interracial case, the court struck down the laws banning same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds, also adopting a new standard of review in the process.

When courts weigh whether distinctions among people or groups violate the right to equal protection they generally require just a rational basis for the distinction, a relatively easy standard to meet. But when the discrimination is based on race, sex or religion, the courts generally require a more substantial justification.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the majority ruled on Thursday, also requires that sort of more rigorous justification. The court acknowledged that it was the first state high court to adopt the standard, strict scrutiny, in sexual orientation cases.

Lawyers for the state identified two interests to justify reserving the term marriage for heterosexual unions — tradition and the will of the majority. Chief Justice George said neither was sufficient.

Still, Chief Justice George took pains to emphasize the limits of the ruling. It does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-sex marriages, he said.

He added that the decision did “not affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.”

Other state high courts to consider the question of same-sex marriage in recent years, including those in New York, New Jersey and Washington, have been closely divided but stopped short of striking down state laws forbidding it. A decision from the Connecticut Supreme Court is expected shortly.

Reference Source

I am puzzled. Why does anti-man want to get married?
Maybe a chance to wear a wedding dress, to get pregnant and raise a family?

Perhaps Terry --- perhaps.

There are indeed lots of puzzled/baffling issues in the world.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Demerara_Guy:
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban



This picture reminded of the movie the ten commandment.
When them ppl was doing them own thing when Mose went up the hills.

If the Pope says its wrang its wrang.

They all look so merry and GAY, high-fiving and hugging and...

...what's that rumbling sound...oh no...not an earthquake measuring 9.5 on the Richter scale?

This can't be Soddom and Gomorrah all over again! Can it? Holy Moses! Where is Abraham? Where is Lot? Where is Lot's wife? Oh no, she in the salt jar!

Pope Benedict, speaking a day after a California court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage, firmly restated on Friday the Roman Catholic Church's position that only unions between a man and a woman are moral.

in a democracy any thing goes once the following has clout. in my books I agree with the pope once they are given their democractic rights

Sita, what thing you talking about

Here's the irony of this California Supreme Court's ruling: The people of California voted in a referendum to BAN GAY MARRIAGE, then the court told the people they have no right to do this. Then what value is a referendum if courts can overrule the will of the people in a democracy? If Obama wins the election and McCain goes to court the court could overrule the will of the people?

A referendum is one step below an election, as the PNC government showed us in 1980 when by a rigged referendum it passed the 1980 People's New Constitution that gave us Executive President Forbes Burnham.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Communicator,

quote:

If the Pope says its wrang its wrang.

If the judge say its right its right. What the Pope know about human love, affection and sexual feeling when he never felt it?

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:
Here's the irony of this California Supreme Court's ruling: The people of California voted in a referendum to BAN GAY MARRIAGE, then the court told the people they have no right to do this. Then what value is a referendum if courts can overrule the will of the people in a democracy? If Obama wins the election and McCain goes to court the court could overrule the will of the people?

quote:

Originally posted by Prince Juno:

If the judge say its right its right. What the Pope know about human love, affection and sexual feeling when he never felt it?

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:

quote:

Originally posted by Prince Juno:

If the judge say its right its right. What the Pope know about human love, affection and sexual feeling when he never felt it?

and i thought he is a christian. imagine juno engaging in situational ethics.

quote:

Originally posted by Communicator:

quote:

Originally posted by Prince Juno:

If the judge say its right its right. What the Pope know about human love, affection and sexual feeling when he never felt it?

Yall don't get the wrong impression, please. I am just weighing in on the power of the religious body vs. the judicial body when it comes to decide the morals of same sex marriage.

I personally against it, but I have to respect the rights of the Gays when it is decided by the court.

Damn for once I with PJ here. Bonus: it is wrong to talk about what xity says about gays.
Jesus did not talk about them..and that ought to be significant in drawing up the ethic of how to deal with them. If you gonna chose which HEbrew bible law to follow and which not, then you should follow ALL the laws of the HB...not only some. If you say that you don't then that allows a CHRISTIAN ethicist to reexamine the matter in a new light...because religion cannot deny that it is possible that it is not a matter of choice. You guys...not only bonus...should be careful about pronouncing judgments on certain things.

quote:

Originally posted by Alexander:
If the Pope says its wrang its wrang.

Only within the ambits of his jurisdiction.

It is doubtful that the Pope has jurisdiction over the Laws of the USA plus the Federal and State Governments and their Administrations.

Gay Couples Rejoice at Ruling

Jim Wilson/The New York Times


Ellen Pontac, left, and Shelly Bailes reacted to the court's decision in San Francisco.


By JESSE McKINLEY
Published: May 16, 2008


SAN FRANCISCO — Gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco rejoiced Thursday over a state Supreme Court decision affirming their right to marry even as political leaders on both sides of the issue prepared for an extended fight over the ruling in the courts and at the ballot box.

Reaction to Gay Marriage Ruling Hundreds of people showed up at San Francisco City Hall, including some women in wedding dresses and at least one carrying an open bottle of Champagne.

“It’s just amazing to feel like I am a full citizen — I am not a second-class citizen,” said Christmas Leubrie, a nurse, who was with her partner, Alice Heimsoth, across the street from City Hall on the steps of the Supreme Court building.

Gay rights organizations said the decision was a watershed moment for their movement, which has seen greater societal acceptance in recent decades but continued opposition in some quarters toward same-sex marriage.

“Today will go down as a true turning point,” said Geoff Kors, the executive director of Equality California, a gay rights advocacy group. “It really is a very powerful message that love trumps hate and hope trumps fear.”

But the battle in California is not over. Opponents of same-sex marriage said they had gathered more than one million signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would define marriage as between a man and woman, and effectively undo Thursday’s decision.

Those signatures are still being inspected by county officials under the direction of the Secretary of State.

Robert Tyler, a lawyer with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which argued against same-sex marriage before the California court, said opponents might seek a stay of the decision until voters can take up the issue in November.

Mr. Tyler said that he was especially troubled by the court’s drawing on a 1948 ruling that overturned a state ban on interracial marriages.

“Where is the court going to rationally limit marriage if its not a union between a male and female?” said Mr. Tyler. “There is no evidence to establish that a homosexual lifestyle is an immutable characteristic such as race.”

California becomes only the second state to allow same-sex unions, after Massachusetts. Forty-one states have laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, according to Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, a nonpartisan institute, while 27 states have constitutional amendments prohibiting same sex marriage or defining marriage as a union between a man and a women.

Florida will vote on a constitutional amendment this fall, and Arizona is also considering putting the issue on the ballot.

Thursday’s decision was cause for celebration for Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor, who had set off a national debate over gay marriage in 2004 when he ordered the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. More than 4,000 couples — from 46 states — were married in 2004, although those unions were later invalidated by the courts.

“What a day for San Francisco, what a day for California, what a day for America, what a day for equality,” Mr. Newsom said before a crowd of several hundred jubilant supporters at San Francisco City Hall.

Mr. Newsom said his office would begin preparing for same-sex marriages as soon as the court decision becomes effective in 30 days, if no stay is issued. Unlike in 2004, Thursday’s decision would effect same-sex marriages statewide, something that the mayor seemed both relieved and vindicated by.

“This is not just San Francisco now,” he said shortly after the decision was released. “Its Redding. Its Auburn. It’s Long Beach, its the southern part of the state. It’s Riverside. Its Fresno, that this is now appropriate and legal.”

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has vetoed past bills aimed at legalizing same-sex marriage, issued a brief statement saying he would not support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the court’s ruling.

“I respect the court’s decision,” the Mr. Schwarzenegger said.

The Assembly Republican leader, Mike Villines, said that the court’s decision was a disappointment, but that he believed California voters would affirm that “marriage should be between one man and one woman.”

“I am confident that the people of California will again overwhelmingly vote to preserve and protect traditional marriage,” said Mr. Villines, who is from Fresno, in the state’s conservative Central Valley.

At the city’s ornate City Hall, though, the mood was ebullient, as dozens of same-sex couples stood behind a beaming Mr. Newsom and other city officials and several hundred people cheered from the floor and balconies. Nearby, in the city’s Castro neighborhood, a touchstone in gay America, impromptu parties were erupting at midday, and planned well into the evening. The city’s tourist board issued congratulations, encouraging visitors “to celebrate the freedom to marry in San Francisco.”

Ellen Pontac drove to San Francisco from Davis, Calif., about 65 miles to the east, to with her partner, Shelly Bailes, witness the decision, and she said she was thrilled, but still not totally satisfied.

“This is what should happen, its so simple, so clear,” she said. “I used to say that all I want is the same rights that a 14-year-old girl in Arkansas has. We can’t have them federally. But we will.”

Carolyn Marshall contributed reporting.

Reference Source


Reaction to Gay Marriage Ruling



Maya Scott-Chung, left, and Beth Teper, friends who support gay marriage but are not a couple, also celebrated the decision. California already has a strong domestic partnership law that gives gay and lesbian couples nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage. The majority opinion said that is not enough.
Photo: Jim Wilson/The New York Times