Dave alluded to the conservatives’ reaction to the ruling and I want to take some time to unpack their arguments here.  The Flash Report has a “special report” from Karen England of the Capitol Resource Institute.  She writes:

Four elitist, activist judges decided that they would redefine marriage by overturning the voter-approved Proposition 22. Out of thin air, the court created a “fundamental right” to gay marriage, equal with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The main issue in this case is not whether marriage should be redefined – marriage is an institution that by its very nature cannot be redefined, regardless of political action. No, the main issue here is whether Californians will allow a handful of justices to impose their radical social agenda on citizens.

We often hear about judicial activism but this case will be recorded as the very definition of the term.  These activist judges demonstrated their need for a refresher course in the fundamentals of government and separation of powers.

Let’s take this point by point now, shall we…

As a friend of mine and a real leader in the fight for GLBT equality, Candace Gingrich likes to say when listing things:

A of all, what makes the judges who ruled on this case elitist?  I am pretty damn sure they would never use this descriptor had the court ruled in their favor.  It is simply a way to discount the opinion of the majority of the court.

B of all, Prop. 22 was statutory.  The judges in this case were asked to consider if that law squared with the California Constitution’s equality language.  The opinion of the public simply does not matter.  As Glen Greenwald writes:

(flip-it…the list goes to H of all)

Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue.

C of all, marriage has always been a shifting institution, evolving with society.  No longer do we treat women as property, or let men rape their wives.  This is from a NYT op-ed back in 2005 called “The Heterosexual Revolution”:

Marriage has been in a constant state of evolution since the dawn of the Stone Age. In the process it has become more flexible, but also more optional. Many people may not like the direction these changes have taken in recent years. But it is simply magical thinking to believe that by banning gay and lesbian marriage, we will turn back the clock.

D of all, the court did not create a “fundamental right” to marriage.  They simply stated that whatever straights get to do, so do gays.  If the state legislature wants to switch everyone over to civil unions they are free to do so.  The key here that the state treats both equally.

E of all, the main issue in this case is whether the California constitution requires all individuals to be treated equally with regards to marriage.

F of all, it does look like the voters will have their say.  The initiative that has been submitted and is awaiting approval of the signatures by the Secretary of State would change the California constitution and if that happened, the only way it could be reversed is by changing it again.

G of all, separation of powers worked exactly the way it should with regards to this case.  The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional or not.  That is their job.  The public passed a law, and the court gets to rule.  Now the governor has to enforce it.  That is the way our government works.  It is England that needs a refresher course in the fundamentals of the American system of government.

H of all, BRING. IT. ON!  I  cannot wait for this fight.  I will be fighting to protect my rights.  You are trying to take away my rights.  My generation is slowly but surely replacing yours.  We will prevail.  

And guess what?  It will have absolutely no impact on your life.  Your church can do what ever the heck it wants.  But I have a dream of someday calling a woman my wife and that I am going to fight like hell to protect it.

(An interesting tack to take in the 52nd district – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Mike Lumpkin, retired Navy SEAL and candidate for the 52nd Congressional District, released the following press release this morning regarding yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision on same sex marriage.

Yesterday the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage igniting a storm of divisive partisan reaction across the nation. Retired Navy SEAL Commander and 52nd Congressional District Candidate, Mike Lumpkin, sees the decision and subsequent reaction as an unfortunate yet expected diversion. “Election after election extremists drive this emotionally polarizing issue and marginalize the concerns of everyday Americans,” said Lumpkin.  

The foundation of Commander Lumpkin’s campaign comes from the pro-American creed he lived by for 21 years as a Navy SEAL, “In the military there is no ‘right’ or ‘left’ there is only right or wrong for America.” Lumpkin believes divisive politics are the reason America has gotten so far off track and he is committed to solving issues that transcend extreme politics. “Americans understand the urgency of working together; our deficit is spiraling out of control, we are outsourcing jobs, military families face extended deployments, the border is not secure, and Social Security is in trouble. Americans are smart, patriotic folks and we want our country back. We have too much at stake to let perennial wedge agendas hijack our national discussion,” said Lumpkin. “Same-sex marriage is a states’ rights issue and today’s decision is not surprising given California’s constitution. If the decision is contrary to the will of the majority then Californian’s must change our state’s constitution.”

Congressional candidate Duncan Hunter Jr. responded by saying “Families are under assault by out of control liberal judges.” However, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s and Log Cabin Republican President Patrick Sammon’s support for the decision underscores the fact that same-sex marriage is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue.

“Extremists have some harsh realities to face; this ruling is not the product of a liberal court. Three of the four justices who made the decision were Republican appointees,” said Lumpkin’s campaign manager, Chris Young. “The people who used gay-marriage as a wedge issue to get into office controlled the House, the Senate, the Whitehouse, and had a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court for six years. If senior Congressmen like Duncan Hunter were committed to an anti-gay marriage amendment and they didn’t get the job done, they were incompetent or insincere. Either way, the American people deserve better,” said Young.

Commander Mike Lumpkin served 21 years in the U.S. Navy including eight operational tours as a Navy SEAL on continents across the world. He received over 40 commendations and awards during his service. He was Deputy Commander of Joint Special Operations Task Forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has served as the officer in charge of all west coast SEAL teams, managing over 2000 military and civilian personnel with budgets over $300 million. In addition, Commander Lumpkin served as the liason to Congress for the US Special Operations Command. He was born and raised in Vista. Commander Lumpkin and his wife Jill have one son and two beautiful granddaughters. They reside in Jamul.

Cross-posted with Beyond Chron:

Yesterday’s decision by the California Supreme Court was historic because it set a huge precedent.  Not because the Court found the ban on same-sex marriage similar to earlier bans on interracial marriage, nor because it said domestic partnerships are inherently unequal.  What really mattered is that the Court ruled sexual orientation a “suspect class,” which means that all laws that discriminate on that basis must now pass strict scrutiny – a crucial step forward in the rights of LGBT people.

But same-sex couples in California still lack the federal benefits of marriage that straight people take for granted – like Social Security and immigration – because the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) precludes them from doing so.  Marriage equality supporters must defeat a constitutional amendment in November that would repeal the Court’s ruling, but they also need a President Obama.  If DOMA gets repealed in 2009, gay couples in California will finally be equal in the eyes of the law.

After the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in March on whether the state’s marriage law is unconstitutional, most legal observers predicted that the Court would uphold the ban on same-sex marriage.  If California’s Domestic Partnership Law offers many of the same legal rights as marriage, how are same-sex couples harmed by not getting married?

The Court answered this question by ruling that the term “marriage” is a necessary part of that constitutional right.  By framing the right to marry within the right to have a family, families of same-sex couples must be accorded the same “dignity, respect and stature” as other families enjoy. Offering the “historic and highly respected designation of marriage” only to straight couples – while giving gay couples “the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnerships” presents a “serious risk” of denying them such stature.

It’s what gay marriage supporters have argued for years, and is similar to the “separate is unequal” argument made by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in 2004.  But while that was a victory for California, it wasn’t the best part of yesterday’s ruling.

California’s law defining marriage as being between “a man and a woman” discriminates against gay couples – but to strike it down a court would have to rule that it violates equal protection.  If a law discriminates against a “suspect class” – like race, gender, religion or national origin – it must pass “strict scrutiny.”  In other words, the law is presumed to violate equal protection – unless the state can prove that it serves a compelling public interest, and is narrowly tailored through the least restrictive means toward that end.

But the courts have not recognized sexual orientation as a suspect class – so laws that discriminate against gays and lesbians have been upheld on “rational basis” grounds.  That means a law does not violate equal protection as long as the court can find some intelligible argument for why it makes sense.  New York, for example, upheld its ban on gay marriage through the “rational basis” test – its high court said the state had a greater interest in marrying straight people because they might accidentally have kids.

For decades, LGBT advocates have gone to Court and argued that laws discriminating against them are “gender discrimination.”  Hawaii’s landmark decision in the mid-1990’s on gay marriage was argued on this basis, and S.F. Superior Court judge Richard Kramer originally ruled in the present case in favor of marriage equality on the basis that it was sex discrimination.  The reason for taking this route was strategic: the courts have long considered “gender” to be a suspect class – but not “sexual orientation.”

Yesterday’s decision was historic because it ruled “sexual orientation” a suspect class.  I predicted this might happen when I read the Appellate Court decision in October 2006, where the lower court actually laid out what are the “necessary” elements of a suspect class: (a) the group has historically been oppressed, (b) the trait does not relate to a person’s value to society, and (c) the trait is immutable – i.e., cannot be changed.

Back then, the Appellate Court agreed that sexual orientation fit the first two categories – but said that they lacked evidence to conclude the third point.  At the time, I urged gay marriage advocates in Beyond Chron to give the Supreme Court ample factual evidence that sexual orientation is an “immutable trait” – and that if successful, the Court would have no choice but to strike the ban on same-sex marriage.

But the Supreme Court ruled that it didn’t matter if sexual orientation is “immutable” – because that’s not a necessary element of a suspect class.  “A person’s religion,” said the Court, “is a suspect class for equal protection purposes – and one’s religion is a matter over which an individual can control.”  The Court added that one can cease to be an alien (which is also considered a “suspect class”) by applying for U.S. citizenship.

Treating sexual orientation as a “suspect class” is a breakthrough for gays and lesbians in achieving their rights that will go beyond yesterday’s marriage decision.  In the future, any state law in California that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation must pass “strict scrutiny” – just like laws that discriminate on race, gender, religion or alienage.

San Franciscans were in a festive mood yesterday – after having waited 4 years for this outcome – but the practical legal effect on gay couples is rather minimal.  That’s because California Domestic Partnerships already gave same-sex couples most of the legal rights of marriage.  Moreover, California’s Supreme Court could only require that the state let gay people marry – without extending any marriage rights under federal law.

And the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, explicitly says that same-sex couples cannot enjoy any federal rights – such as Social Security benefits, immigration laws that allow you to sponsor a foreign spouse, and the right to file a joint federal tax return.  Even Massachusetts, where gay couples have had the right to marry since 2004, does not have complete marriage equality for this reason.

But a President Barack Obama – along with bigger Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress – could change this after the November elections.  Obama has pledged to fully repeal DOMA, whereas Republican John McCain would not.  There will certainly be a fight in Congress, so marriage equality advocates must focus on the various House and Senate races in November – to ensure that a Democratic Congress will make it possible.

Meanwhile, the extreme right in California will put a constitutional amendment on the November ballot to prohibit marriage equality.  Because yesterday’s Court ruling was based on the California Constitution – not the U.S. Constitution – passage by the voters would effectively repeal the Supreme Court’s decision.  Therefore, much is at stake this November – and marriage equality supporters must mobilize now to defeat the initiative.

Yesterday’s court ruling was historic – and has created an exciting new precedent for gays and lesbians in California.  But we now run the risk of losing in November at the ballot box – and we still need to repeal DOMA at the federal level to get full marriage equality.  Defeating the initiative and repealing DOMA are both doable goals.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth was a law school intern at Equality California during the summer of 2005, and got his J.D. from Golden Gate University in 2006.  He is an attorney licensed to practice law in California.

You guys figure that out budget thing, I’ve got yacht parties to attend:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger brushed aside criticism of his latest budget plan Thursday and said lawmakers now bear responsibility for resolving the state’s $15.2 billion budget deficit.

The Republican governor, speaking with The Bee’s editorial board, lamented he had “negotiated with myself” for the last five months because legislative leaders did not meet with him to discuss the budget.

“The reality of it is that the ball is in their court,” Schwarzenegger said. “The more they scream, the deeper they bury themselves. Because in the end, they have to meet somewhere in the middle to get this budget done.”

Hey, Arnold did all he could, right?  He threw out some ideas to massively cut social service programs and raid lottery funds to borrow against the state’s future.  Isn’t that ENOUGH?  I mean, the guy hasn’t been on the cover of a magazine or at a Laker game in WEEKS!  Let him be.  These yacht parties don’t happen every day.

It is funny that Schwarzenegger is firmly in the middle of a Republican civil war.

“I said, ‘Look, if you guys are so worried about it, I’ll say it,'” Schwarzenegger said about the need to consider taxing more services. “And of course I’ll get beaten up and Republicans will say this is a signal, this is a code word that means you want to raise taxes. What do I care? Let them say that. They’re always going to complain anyway that I want to raise taxes.”

There were hundreds of students at the Capitol yesterday protesting the education cuts that remain in the May Revise.  The Yacht Party is on the wrong side of history.  Arnold’s also on the wrong side – unwilling to actually fix the budget out of fear, and willing to mortgage the future (and threaten taxes as a way to get his way on mortgaging the future).

While Jeff Denhamn chases Communist ghosts, activism on the loyalty oath continues. In response to recent firings of Quaker teachers who needed to alter the oath, People for the American Way delivered 11,000 petitions to CSU Chancellor Charles Reed’s office calling for the CSU system to conform to case law and the UC system practice of allowing employees to attach an “explanatory statement” to the oath clarifying its relationship to their religious beliefs. The petition text:

“There’s no good reason for Cal State not to let employees express their religious or other objections to signing the state’s “loyalty oath.”

“Please uphold freedom of religion and freedom of speech by adopting a policy that allows employees to add an explanatory statement to the oath that will allow them to sign it without violating their beliefs.

“This is already common practice at the University of California. You should make it the practice of Cal State.”

PFAW Foundation President Kathryn Kolbert explained it this way:

“It is simply beyond irony that a teacher planning an American studies course with a section on the McCarthy era would be required to sign a ‘loyalty oath.’ Our members are engaged around this issue, and we’re committed to seeing it through to the end. This should be a straightforward matter for the University, the protection of religious freedom and free speech. We’re hopeful this issue will be resolved soon.”

There is no reason for the CSU system to not embrace these calls for reform. The loyalty oath is an anachronism from the 1950s, and while CSU cannot refuse to administer it, they are under an obligation to handle it with respect to Californians’ religious freedoms. The recent firings of CSU teachers at the Fullerton and East Bay campuses suggest that CSU needs to change its policies and practices.

You can also sign the petition online – and help ensure religious freedom and civil liberties at the CSU system.

Thank God we have Jeff Denham in the State Senate. Without him California might have already succumbed to the Communist menace that seeks to overthrow our great American way of life by subverting our children and our schools in the service of…

Oh? What’s that you say? The Berlin Wall fell 20 years ago and the Cold War has been over for just as long? Huh. That’s odd. Because even though the State Senate passed Alan Lowenthal’s bill to remove membership in the Communist Party as a firing offense for public employees, Denham has denounced the bill as giving succor to our numerous Communist enemies around the world:

Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Atwater, warned “the Communist Party is not a dead organization … and (is) actively repressing human beings in Cuba and China in brutal ways.

“The state has every right to hold school employees accountable for their political standing, especially if that employee belongs to an organization that favors the violent overthrow of the government,” Denham said during the debate on the bill.

Denham said that it’s also “reasonable that use of public school property should be limited to groups who support our democracy and do not advocate the overthrow of government by force, violence or other possible means.”

I wonder if Denham got the memo that the Cold War is over – or are Republicans really so desperate that they have to turn to red baiting to try and improve their political fortunes?

Or perhaps the Yacht Party believes that only their efforts to overthrow government, by starving it of the revenues necessary to provide the basic services that keep a modern society functioning, is legitimate?

At least the recall is still on the ballot in the 12th district, and voters can decide for themselves whether they want to be represented by someone whose politics are 50 years out of date, or by someone  who actually understands the present-day needs of his constituents instead of spending his time chasing after the Red Menace.

More than 200 celebratory residents of the Coachella Valley and environs gathered before the Palm Springs City Hall to mark the California Supreme Court decision granting Marriage Equality to members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender communities.  In a 4-3 decision, California, with one eighth of the population of the Nation, that is, more than 35 million out of 300 million American residents, leads the way to Civil Rights and Marriage Equality for all.  For All.

In an occasion marked by ‘mere’ citizens like Scott and Jon Hines and their two young children, Steve O’Brien and Scott Evans, partners of 13-years, Carol and Mike Balassa, leaders of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays – Palm Springs (PFLAG), and others, law-abiding and tax-paying citizens all, paid tribute to the heroism of the California Supreme Court for the landmark decision.  Coachella Valley electeds such as Palm Springs City Councilmember Ginny Foat, Palm Springs City Councilmember Rick Hutcheson, Water District Board Member Craig Ewing, Cathedral City Councilmember and Candidate for Cathedral City Mayor Paul Marchand, and Cathedral City Councilmember and Candidate for the 80th Assembly District Greg Pettis attended the celebration.

More below the flip…

More from mydesert.com, the online edition of The Desert Sun:

(Scott and Jon Hines) had just lost a Tennesee Supreme Court case to try and overturn a ban on same-sex marriage.

“They treated us like second class citizens,” Scott Hines of Palm Springs said.

On Thursday, the chance they took for legal marriage in California paid off.

The family of four joined 200 others at Palm Springs City Hall to celebrate the California Supreme Court decision Thursday to overturn a ban on gay marriage.

“We came here because we knew there was a chance,” Scott Hines said.

When he got the news early Thursday, he called his partner of five years and asked him to marry him.

“I was in (a) dentist chair,” Jon Hines said with a big smile as he and Scott’s children, Louis, 11, and Sage,3, played nearby.

Louis, a fifth grader, has been known to say that two dads are better than one, Jon Hines said.

“They rock,” Louis said.

Several who attended the rally wore black T-shirts that read “Let California Ring…”

…Several hugged and cheered when Mayor Pro Tem Ginny Foat shouted, “Happy Marriage Day!”

Councilman Rick Hutcheson said Thursday was a “joyous day for Palm Springs and a joyous day for my family.”

He joked though that it was also an expensive day because he and his partner of 10 years would now need to shop for wedding rings.

Local radio talkshow host Bill Feingold said he was surprised at how affected he was by the Supreme Court decision, adding he cried a little.

“I feel validated,” Feingold said. “I am an American like everybody else today.”

Foat discussed the long, hard struggle of the LGBT community, and the leadership that members of the Palm Springs community provided to the Marriage Equality struggle.  Foat noted that the City of Palm Springs, amongst many other California cities like Oakland, Los Angeles, San Diego, and others, filed friends of the court amicus briefs to support today’s California Supreme Court ruling.  Foat reported that she had left a message for her long-time partner, Pam, asking her to marry her in a voice mail message.  The crowd responded in laughter when Foat indicated that her partner expected more, including an in-person marriage proposal and a ‘bended knee.’  Nevertheless, Foat’s partner said “Yes!.”  Foat also reported that the Palm Springs City Council, lead by Mayor Steve Pougnet, Hutcheson, and herself would seek to have a Riverside County clerical presence in Palm Springs to allow locals to seek a marriage license here, rather than having to travel to Indio as presently planned.

Foat read a congratulatory letter from Pougnet who with his partner and twins were at a family function in Rochester, NY.  Clearly Pougnet, attending a family event, missed being in Palm Springs to celebrate a LGBT family event with the California Supreme Court ruling.

Hutcheson discussed the personal and community blessings of the Court ruling, indicating that Palm Springs could become the Marriage Equality capital of California.  Clearly, Marriage Equality will benefit Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage hotels, resorts, spas, restaurants, caterers, and entertainers in the near future.

Foat introduced Greg Pettis, Candidate for the 80th Assembly District, as ‘THE 80th Assembly District candidate,’ to which Pettis received resounding applause.  When Foat reported that Pettis would replace Bonnie Garcia (R), the applause and cheers exploded further.  Pettis has fully supported Marriage Equality, foster parent priviliges for the LGBT community, anti-bullying measures for the schools, and other LGBT issues during his 13 years + tenure as Cathedral City Councilmember and former-Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City.  Pettis discussed his previous leadership in crafting measures to protect the interests of members of the LGBT communities in Riverside County and in Cathedral City.

Pettis has had the endorsements of every member of the LGBT legislative caucus in Sacramento including Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), Chair, Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego), Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles), Senator Carole Migden, and Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).  Other local electeds, members of the LGBT community endorsing Pettis include Foat, Hutcheson, Marchand, Desert Hot Springs Councilmember Karl Baker, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club Treasurer Bob Silverman, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club Secretary James Reynolds, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club Vice-President Roger Tansey, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club Steering Committee Members Donald W. Grimm, Ph.D., Bob Mahlowitz, Greg Rodriguez, and Lynn Worley, Desert Stonewall Democratic Club activist Bill Cain-Gonzales, Palm Springs Democratic Club Co-Chair David Pye, Palm Springs Democratic Club Co-Chair Sandy Eldridge, former Palm Springs Democratic Club Co-Chair Robert Lee Thomas, amongst others.

In addition, Pettis has been endorsed by all, by all of the local LGBT Democratic Clubs including the Desert Stonewall Democratic Club, the Inland Stonewall Democratic Club, and the San Diego Democratic Club.

Pettis discussed the benefits to the West Valley communities of Marriage Equality.  He also discussed the fact that the impact on the Imperial Valley communities might be even greater as the visibility of the LGBT communities there becomes even more evident at neighbors, family members and friends publically seek and obtain marriage licenses in El Centro, Brawley, Coachella, and Indio.  That is where real change in the local political and social environment as a result of Marriage Equality will occur.