Same-Sex Marriage Update

[Tommi]

Originally Posted by MsTinkerbelly

I am happy for my State, and for those in States where marriage equality reigns...but I know the fight is not over until everyone can enjoy the same sense of equality.

YES.. MsTinkerbelly. So right--" HRC....efforts in states around the country, including New Jersey, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada and others."

STAND FOR MARRIAGE
Follow breaking news and learn more about what decisions mean for two historic marriage equality cases at the Supreme Court.

June 26, 2013 at 10:54 am

Monumental Victories Reveal Two Tiers of Equality in America

In recent years, California’s Proposition 8 and the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act became symbols of anti-LGBT discrimination around the country and around the world. Today, both crumbled.

In a watershed moment in the fight for equality, the United States Supreme Court today ruled to return marriage equality to California and to strike down DOMA. The court ruled in the Prop 8 case on procedural grounds, not reaching a decision on the merits of Prop 8 or the broader question of whether the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to marry the person you love.

Marriages in California are expected to begin again soon. While a joyous milestone, these victories nonetheless throw into sharp relief the uneven progress for LGBT people around the country—a landscape where states like California are rapidly advancing toward equality, but progress in many other places remains stagnant.

“Today’s historic decisions put two giant cracks in the dark wall of discrimination that separates committed gay and lesbian couples from full equality,” said HRC president Chad Griffin, who brought together the bipartisan legal team of Ted Olson and David Boies that brought the Proposition 8 case to the Supreme Court. “While we celebrate the victory for Californians today, tomorrow we turn our attention to the millions of LGBT people who don’t feel the reach of these decisions. From the Rocky Mountains to the heart of the South, it’s time to push equality forward until every American can marry the person they love and all LGBT people are guaranteed equal protection under the law.”

HRC is committed to accelerating the progress of marriage equality through ongoing financial and strategic assistance to efforts in states around the country, including New Jersey, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada and others. And with the Defense of Marriage Act gone, the organization is pushing hard to ensure that the Obama administration cuts through regulatory clutter and delivers the greatest number of benefits to the greatest amount of people.

“These decisions underscore the emergence of two Americas. In one, LGBT citizens are nearing full equality. In the other, our community lacks even the most basic protections,” said Griffin. “Everywhere that injustice still prevails, we will fight for justice. And our message to those who cement their feet on the wrong side of history is that we will win.”


For Full Story: http://humanrightscampaign.tumblr.co...of-equality-in

[Greyson]

NO MORE DOMA!!!

With DOMA being struck down this now means that legally married same-sex couples will now be afforded all Federal rights and protection. This would include Immigration law. Now legally married same-sex partners can immigrate to this country if they choose to. Honestly, I did lose hope in my country, USA about 10 years ago. Some of that belief was restored today.

Prop 8 ruling restores marriage equality to same-sex couples in California. This is wonderful news. However, the struggle for full equality nation wide will continue. No one will be left behind. For our fellow queers, lesbians, gays, in states that do not recognized your humanity, yet, we will keep pushing forward.

[Italianboi]

Originally Posted by Greyson

NO MORE DOMA!!!

With DOMA being struck down this now means that legally married same-sex couples will now be afforded all Federal rights and protection. This would include Immigration law. Now legally married same-sex partners can immigrate to this country if they choose to. Honestly, I did lose hope in my country, USA about 10 years ago. Some of that belief was restored today.

Prop 8 ruling restores marriage equality to same-sex couples in California. This is wonderful news. However, the struggle for full equality nation wide will continue. No one will be left behind. For our fellow queers, lesbians, gays, in states that do not recognized your humanity, yet, we will keep pushing forward.

this is the best ever news for me.....I am so happy....yep yep!!!!


now...I just need to find a wife!!! lol

[Greyson]

Originally Posted by Greyson

NO MORE DOMA!!!

With DOMA being struck down this now means that legally married same-sex couples will now be afforded all Federal rights and protection. This would include Immigration law. Now legally married same-sex partners can immigrate to this country if they choose to. Honestly, I did lose hope in my country, USA about 10 years ago. Some of that belief was restored today.

After listening to more legal analysis this morning I am unsure if Immigration status must be recognized in every state. Some say it will depend upon the state. Immigration comes under Federal law. We know states can pass immigration laws and policies but many times they are struck down because Immigration is under Federal purview.

But, this is not the first time our courts make decisions that seem opposed to the constitution. DOMA was a perfect example. Until DOMA the Federal government left it up to the States to decide matters of marriage and divorce. Historically it came under "States Rights." Also, States would honor, recognize all marriages from any state and then afford legal status to their union when in a state that did not perform the marriage. All of that was not the case for interracial couples until Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.

Now we shall see how each state decides to Queer marriages. There are still 37 states the define marriage as "One Man and One Woman."

This past Sunday I did speak to a diverse group of people primarily made up of straight white middle and upper class and there was representation from Latino, African American, LGBTQ and poor people. I addressed Immigration Reform. I reminded them that Senator Marco Rubio was doing every thing he could to keep Immigration Reform out of the reach of Same-Sex couples and families during this latest change in our immigration laws.

I am hoping the overruling of DOMA will now settle that particular immigration injustice. Our time is here. Never give up on humanity for all.


Timeline for Interracial Marriage in USA:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/rac...y-Timeline.htm

Timeline for LGBTQ Marriage in USA:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...95P07320130626

[MsTinkerbelly]

Kamala Harris On Prop 8 Decision: Same-Sex Marriages In California Should Begin Immediately


Posted: 06/26/2013 5:23 pm EDT


California Attorney General Kamala Harris gave a triumphant press conference Wednesday morning in reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to effectively dismiss California's Proposition 8, which barred same-sex couples from marrying.

In an exuberant speech delivered in downtown Los Angeles, Harris said that all 58 counties in California must abide by Northern California Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 ruling that declared Prop 8 unconstitutional.

She also strongly urged the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the stay on same-sex marriages as soon as possible -- even before the usual 25-day waiting period until the Supreme Court clerk notifies the lower court of its judgement.

"I am absolutely saying that if the 9th Circuit lifts its stay before the 25 days, that marriages can resume in California -- and shall resume in California," Harris said. "As soon as they lift that stay, marriages are on."

In an emotional tribute to California's same-sex couples, Harris explained that even just one more day of unequal rights was one day too many.

"Each one of those days that has passed has been a day that a family member who may have enjoyed and participated in a wedding ceremony may have passed away," she said. "Each day that has passed is a day that a baby may have been born -- and that California child, then, is in a situation where they don't have the full dignity that other children have when they look up and they ask, 'Why can't my mommies or my daddies be married also?'"

"For that reason," she concluded, "I urge the 9th Circuit to lift the stay as quickly as possible."

In a statement released just after the Supreme Court's ruling on Prop 8 Wednesday, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) also put the onus on the 9th Circuit to lift the stay on same-sex marriages.

"Same-sex Californians will not be able to marry until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirms the stay of the injunction, which has been in place throughout the appeals process, is lifted," Brown said in a statement.

Even though Judge Walker found Prop 8 unconstitutional, he also issued a stay on same-sex marriage along with his ruling, acknowledging that the case could still live on in appeals.

Unfortunately for Harris and same-sex couples who want to get married as soon as possible, the 9th Circuit has already confirmed that it will indeed wait for 25 days -- and even longer, if need be -- before lifting the stay on same-sex marriages.

The court prefers to wait for the Supreme Court's ruling to become official and also wants to give Prop 8 proponents time to ask for a rehearing, the Associated Press reports.

[Nadeest]

Only Section 3 of DOMA has been deemed unconstitutional. That clears the way for federal benefits to be given to all married people, yes. However, Section 2 is still in effect, thus States can still refuse to recognize same sex marriages that happened in another state.

The fight is far from over, people. We have just won one battle. The war is still going on, and we have not nearly won, yet.

[Soon]

[MsTinkerbelly]

Marty Lederman Guest

Posted Wed, June 26th, 2013 11:32 pm

Email Marty
Bio & Post Archive »

The fate of same-sex marriage in California after Perry

Back before the oral arguments in Perry, I wrote a post explaining what might happen to same-sex marriage in California if the Supreme Court were to hold that the Proposition 8 sponsors did not have standing to appeal from Judge Vaughn Walker’s judgment of August 4, 2010.

Now that that is indeed what has happened, what does it mean for the marriage rights of same-sex couples in California?

The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of the Ninth Circuit must be vacated, and remanded the case to the court of appeals “with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” What about the district court judgment, however? In my previous post, I surmised that perhaps the Supreme Court would say something about the proper scope or application of the trial court’s judgment in the event the Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision. Not so: the Court majority is silent on the question of how Judge Walker’s injunction should be applied. Notably, however, in his dissenting opinion Justice Kennedy wrote that “the Court’s opinion today means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed.”

Judge Walker’s injunction — see page 136 of his opinion — therefore remains unchanged by the Supreme Court’s decision; it is in effect the law of the case. What does this mean, as a practical matter, for same-sex marriages in California? Let’s take the relevant questions in turn:

1. When will the injunction take effect?

A: When the court of appeals lifts the stay that it imposed on the district court’s judgment. The Supreme Court’s mandate to the court of appeals will not be issued for at least 25 days. As far as I know, however, the court of appeals does not have to wait for the Supreme Court’s mandate in order to lift its stay of the trial court’s injunction. And Attorney General Harris apparently has asked the court of appeals to lift the stay as soon as possible. Therefore the trial court’s injunction will presumably go into effect on Monday, July 22d at the latest . . . and perhaps earlier.

2. Which state officials are bound by the injunction?

A: Judge Walker’s injunction reads: “Defendants in their official capacities, and all persons under the control or supervision of defendants, are permanently enjoined from applying or enforcing Article I, § 7.5 of the California Constitution.” (Section 7.5 is Proposition 8, which provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”)

The defendants who are bound by the injunction are six California officials—the County Clerks of Alameda County and Los Angeles County, the Governor, the Attorney General, the Director of the Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics, and the Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the Department of Public Health. The injunction clearly binds these six officials.

Moreover, in a memorandum dated June 3, 2013, Attorney General Harris concluded that, under California law, all California County Clerks—officers who have responsibilities to issue marriage licenses and otherwise implement state marriage laws—are “under the control or supervision” of the Director of the Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics. In support of this conclusion, the Attorney General relied primarily upon language in the California Supreme Court opinion in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459, 498 (Cal. 2004). I do not know enough about California law to assess whether the Attorney General’s opinion is correct that County Clerks are subject to the supervision of the Director of DPH . . . but assuming it is correct, then the injunction would also run against all California County Clerks, at least with respect to their function of issuing marriage licenses.

3. Which same-sex couples does the injunction protect?

A: Well, it obviously benefits the two couples who sued in Perry — Kris Perry and Sandy Stier, and Paul Katami and Jeff Zarrillo. They will be able to obtain marriage licenses from the defendant Clerks of Alameda and Los Angeles Counties, respectively.

What about the many other California same-sex couples who were not plaintiffs in the case? In my earlier post, I wrote that it is “not clear from the face of the injunction whether Judge Walker intended it to apply only to the defendants’ treatment of the two plaintiff couples, or whether Judge Walker instead intended to prohibit the defendants from denying marriage licenses to any same-sex couples in California.”

But in the briefing subsequent to my post, all the parties appeared to agree that Judge Walker’s injunction was intended, and is best construed, to also guarantee non-party same-sex couples the right to receive California marriage licenses. Therefore I think it’s fair to assume the injunction will be interpreted, by public officials and courts alike, to protect all same-sex couples, not limited to the four named plaintiffs. As Lyle explains, that is certainly the view of the relevant California officials, including the Governor and the State Registrar, who have advised state officials accordingly.

Did Judge Walker have the authority to issue such an injunction protecting non-parties? I don’t think he did, for the reasons I described in my previous post—primarily, that district court judges generally do not have the power to issue injunctions that protect persons other than the parties before them, absent a class action or a case in which a broader injunction is necessary to ensure that the plaintiffs receive complete relief. (On the other hand, not a single Justice on the Supreme Court uttered a word today to call into question the legality of the breadth of Judge Walker’s injunction, a fact that will certainly lend support to the counterargument that Judge Walker did not overreach in crafting the scope of the order, in the event that were to become an issue in further litigation.)

But even if I were right about that legal proposition—that is to say, even if Judge Walker’s injunction should have been limited to the protection of the plaintiffs before him—so what? That injunction nevertheless governs the case, and it will be operative, regardless of whether it should have been more tailored. And in their briefs to the Supreme Court, both the private-party challengers of Prop 8 and the City and County of San Francisco stressed that no party (no party with standing, anyway) had challenged the scope of that injunction.

Now that the injunction will finally go into effect, could there be a new challenge to the application of Judge Walker’s decision to non-party couples? If so, such a challenge presumably would come from either the named defendants (virtually inconceivable), or from a County Clerk who does not wish to issue a marriage license to a couple who were not plaintiffs in the Perry case.

My tentative view is that such a County Clerk challenge is a very unlikely prospect, for several reasons:

First, such a Clerk might be subject to the direction of the State Director of DPH as a matter of California law, and the Director might have the authority to forbid such a challenge and to direct the Clerk to issue the license. (Again, I am not sufficiently well-versed in California law to know for sure on this point.)

Second, a motion by such a County Clerk for relief from the judgment as applied to non-party couples, presumably pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “must be made within a reasonable time,” according to Rule 60(c)(1). And it’s now been almost three years since the court issued the injunction. On the other hand, the injunction has been stayed most of that time, which might affect whether a motion now would be “reasonable.” (Any Rule 60 mavens out there who might know more about this?) [UPDATE: Thoughts from Howard Wasserman on this and related issues.]

Third, and most importantly, why bother? A County Clerk knows that if he refuses to issue a marriage license, the couple in question could simply drive to another county to apply to a different Clerk. Moreover, such a Clerk thinking of challenging the scope of the injunction also knows that if that collateral attack were successful, the requesting couple could then bring their own constitutional lawsuit against the Clerk, and would almost certainly prevail on the merits in the district court and in the Ninth Circuit—especially in light of the Supreme Court’s decision today in Windsor. Even a successful challenge to the scope of Judge Walker’s injunction, therefore, would only (at best) delay an almost inevitable injunction against the Clerk in question. Hardly worth the candle, then.

If I’m right that no Clerk is likely to challenge the application of the injunction to non-plaintiffs, or in any event that any such challenge is unlikely to be successful in permitting the Clerk to deny license applications in the long run, the result will be that County Clerks throughout California will be legally required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples . . . and most or all will be willing or required to do so by July 22d at the latest. Judge Kennedy, then, will have been proven correct that “the Court’s opinion today means that a single district court can make a decision with far-reaching effects that cannot be reviewed.”

That is to say: Same-sex marriage in California is here to stay. And therefore, as of August 1, marriage equality will be a reality in the District of Columbia and thirteen states: California, Connecticut, Delaware (where a new law takes effect July 1), Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota (where a new law takes effect August 1), New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island (also Aug. 1), Vermont, and Washington.

[tara_kerrie]

A group called Arkansans for Equality submitted paperwork to the Attorney General to see if the paperwork is legal so they can start gathering signatures to have an ammendment to overturn the ban on gay marriage on the ballot next year.

I think i explained that right. If i misunderstood i hope that Medusa or someone will correct me.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Kerrie

A group called Arkansans for Equality submitted paperwork to the Attorney General to see if the paperwork is legal so they can start gathering signatures to have an ammendment to overturn the ban on gay marriage on the ballot next year.

I think i explained that right. If i misunderstood i hope that Medusa or someone will correct me.

Great news!

[MsTinkerbelly]

Arkansas reacts to same-sex marriage ruling

8:17 PM, Jun 26, 2013

Lisa Hutson



LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (KTHV) - The U.S. Supreme Court made two historical rulings regarding same-sex marriage Wednesday. Legally married same-sex couples will now be able to receive the same federal benefits reserved only for heterosexual couples.

Arkansas defined marriage as between one man and one woman back in 2004, and while today's decision doesn't change that, some advocates say it fueled the fire to make same-sex marriages legal in the natural state.

"We've got support now from the Supreme Court, at least 5 of them, that marriage equality should happen or at least they shouldn't be denied federal benefits. I think that says something. We are moving forward as a country," said Trey Weir, co-founder of the Arkansas Initiative for Marriage Equality.

Wednesday's decision will affect those same-sex couples legally married in one of the 10 states that recognize them, but it will not affect those living here in Arkansas.

"Military benefits for same-sex spouses, social security survivor benefits, just a whole long list of benefits that are now available," said Weir.

"A positive aspect to this ruling is that it does not create a constitutional basis for same-sex marriage itself. Now it just gives the benefits--the federal benefits--to same sex couples," added Sarah Bean with Arkansas Family Council.

Beans said while the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, it's decision not to rule on Proposition 8 shows the states have all the power when it comes to same-sex marriage.

"This is a state's decision. It's the state's rights. The states need to decide. I believe in 38 or 39 states, those states have made the decision that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and I'm glad the federal government is going to honor that. That is exactly what needs to happen," explained Bean.

But, Weir believes the attitudes towards same-sex couples are changing and hopes Arkansas' law will too.

"I think people are starting to understand that it's going to happen. People are bringing it to the dinner table. They are talking about it, and hopefully some hearts and minds will be changed," Weir concluded.

Weir also said his team has drafted a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in Arkansas and plans to submit it to the Attorney General's office. They hope to get 200,000 signatures in order to get the measure on the 2016 ballot.

Arkansas' congressmen and senators say they still support the amendment Arkansas voters approved in 2004 defining marriage as between a man and a woman

[tara_kerrie]

http://www.fox16.com/mediacenter/loc...navCatId=19792

[tara_kerrie]

LITTLE ROCK, AR (News Release) - Arkansans for Equality, a Non-Profit Organization supporting equality for all Arkansans, has submitted ballot language for the 2014 ballot to the Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel for the repeal of Amendment 83.

Amendment 83 denies marriage equality to all Arkansans by limiting same sex marriage, denying civil unions and not recognizing such marriages or unions from other states.

"We are excited the United States Supreme Court has found DOMA unconstitutional. We applaud our federal government, and now we urge our state government to recognize equality for all Americans must mean equality for all Arkansans. In the Declaration of Independence, our Founding Fathers stated that all men have the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When all Americans share those same human rights, only then are we truly are free," says AFE Co-chair Judd Mann.

Arkansans for Equality is a bipartisan organization founded in 2012. The organization's belief is that all individuals, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity should be treated equally under the law and in every environment.

Language for Ballot Initiative to repeal Amendment 83 to the Arkansas Constitution:

Popular Name: Repeal of Arkansas Marriage Amendment

Title: Proposed Amendment to the Arkansas Constitution to Repeal Amendment 83, Which Limits the Definition of Marriage and Limits the Ability of the State of Arkansas to Recognize Civil Unions or Other Relationships Substantially Similar to Marriage; Which Limits the Rights of Arkansas Residents Married in Other Jurisdictions; Which Limits the Rights of Arkansas Residents Who Entered into Civil Unions in Other States; and Which Prevents Federal Laws Pertaining to the Rights of Married Persons being Applied in a Consistent Manner to Persons Living in Arkansas Who Were Married or Entered into Civil Unions Elsewhere; but Which Allows the Arkansas Legislature or Courts to Determine the Capacity of Persons to Marry, and to Regulate the Legal Rights, Obligations, Privileges and Immunities of Marriage, Subject to Federal Law.

[tara_kerrie]

LITTLE ROCK, AR - Wednesday, President Barack Obama became the first U.S. President to support gay marriage. While that news is not sitting well with some Arkansans, others say attitudes on same-sex marriage in Arkansas are changing.

Right now, Arkansas bans same-sex marriage by defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but, one state leader already says she sees attitudes changing.

"I think it's a turning point, and I was very happy that President Obama did that," says State Representative Kathy Webb.

Webb is the first openly gay elected official in Arkansas history. Wednesday's presidential announcement in support of same-sex marriage makes her proud.

"All we want is to be treated equally, and I don't think that's something that's too much to ask," says Webb.

"It was no surprise whatsoever when I saw on the news today that he indeed came out and said 'I support same-sex marriage,'" says Jerry Cox with the Family Council.

The conservative Little Rock-based Family Council believes strongly marriage is between one man and one woman.

"Not politically smart. At least, not for a state like Arkansas where three out of four people have already voted and said that they oppose same-sex marriage," says Cox of Obama's statement.

However, in Webb's six years in the state legislature, she's seen support for same-sex marriage grow.

"I think as people continue being more comfortable being themselves, you're gonna see attitudes in Arkansas really change," she says.

The Family Council, though, doesn't see same-sex marriage acceptance coming to Arkansas any time soon.

"If the values of people are becoming more liberal, it's not to a point where it's gonna be tipped in favor of same-sex marriage. And so, whether or not there's a trend or not, the only trend you can measure for sure, is the one where 31 states have already voted and said we think marriage ought to be the union of a man and a woman," says Cox.

Q: Do you support same-sex marriage?

Yes

50.9%
No

49.1%

[blackboot]

Prop 8: Gay marriages can resume in California, court rules


By Maura Dolan
June 28, 2013, 3:25 p.m.



The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday cleared the way for gay marriages to resume in California.


The court lifted its stay on an injunction which ordered state officials to stop enforcing Proposition 8. With the court's action, counties can now begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

A spokesman for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had originally said it would takes the court at least 25 days to act after a Supreme Court ruling. Immediately afterward, Gov. Jerry Brown ordered his public health agency to advise the state's counties to "begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the 9th Circuit confirms the stay is lifted."

Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's 2010 decision overturning Proposition 8 applied only to the two same-sex couples who challenged the ballot measure. But their enthusiasm for going to court to try to narrow the effect of the decision appeared to wane in the hours after the decision.

With Brown and Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris pledging to block Proposition 8 across California, the momentum for gay marriage was likely to hinder any further challenges.

California voters passed Proposition 8 in 2008, six months after the California Supreme Court ruled that gays had the right to wed. The state high court later ruled that the initiative was a valid state constitutional amendment but upheld the validity of an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that occurred before the election.

The Supreme Court ruled that ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of Proposition 8, lacked legal authority or standing to appeal Walker's ruling blocking the ballot initiative. The high court said Proposition 8's sponsors were not directly affected by Walker's ruling. Only state officials had the right to appeal, and they refused. That procedural decision wiped out the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' 2-1 ruling against Proposition 8, leaving only Walker's decision in place and affecting only California.

County clerks who preside over marriages said they were ready for same-sex weddings. Marriage licenses already are gender-neutral, and clerks began receiving calls Wednesday from gay couples wanting to schedule appointments.

Harris called on the 9th Circuit on Wednesday to lift its hold on Walker's ruling immediately. The attorney general said she believed that the appeals court had the authority to act quickly.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Same-sex marriages resume in California after court gives go-ahead


By CNN Staff

updated 7:16 PM EDT, Fri June 28, 2013

California lifts same-sex marriage ban



STORY HIGHLIGHTS
A federal appeals court lifts an order banning same-sex marriages
It takes effect "immediately," according to the court order
The U.S. Supreme Court paved the way for the move with a ruling Wednesday

(CNN) -- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that same-sex marriages can resume in California, a move that the Supreme Court paved the way for on Wednesday.

Three judges on the appeals court made it possible for local governments to issue marriage certificates for gay and lesbian couples with a few words: "The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately."

Very soon after, California Attorney General Kamala Harris was already at San Francisco's city hall marrying couples, according to her office.

"I am thrilled that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its stay to allow same-sex couples to legally marry in California," Harris said in a statement. "Gay and lesbian couples have waited so long for this day and for their fundamental right to marry. Finally, their loving relationships are as legitimate and legal as any other."

California's Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May 2008, ruling that the state's constitution gives "this basic civil right to (marry to) all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

But months later, 52% of voters backed Proposition 8 to once again restrict marriages so that they can only be between a man and a woman.

The measure put gay and lesbian marriages on hold in the state, but a federal appeals court later rule Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed an appeal of that federal court ruling on jurisdictional grounds. That meant that Friday's news -- and the resumption of same-sex marriages in the Golden State -- was expected, even if the timing wasn't fully known

[Toughy]

I did not read all the posts since the SCOTUS ruling, so...

We all do realize that DOMA is NOT struck down? The only section of DOMA struck down is the Federal Recognition of legal civil same gender marriage. Individual states still do not have to recognize legal same gender civil marriage from another state. That means you cannot file joint state taxes and you are denied whatever state benefits there are when it comes to legal civil marriage in that state.

I believe there has been talk from Dems to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA entirely. We all know that will go nowhere in the House....maybe it would pass in the Senate.

We need registered voters and we need a 70% or greater turnout in 2014 to actually get anything done about anything.

[MsTinkerbelly]

Originally Posted by Toughy

I did not read all the posts since the SCOTUS ruling, so...

We all do realize that DOMA is NOT struck down? The only section of DOMA struck down is the Federal Recognition of legal civil same gender marriage. Individual states still do not have to recognize legal same gender civil marriage from another state. That means you cannot file joint state taxes and you are denied whatever state benefits there are when it comes to legal civil marriage in that state.

I believe there has been talk from Dems to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA entirely. We all know that will go nowhere in the House....maybe it would pass in the Senate.

We need registered voters and we need a 70% or greater turnout in 2014 to actually get anything done about anything.

Yes, it's been mentioned several times.

The fight continues!

[MsTinkerbelly]

I just watched clips of the two couples that represented the people in the case against prop hate get married, and I cried all the way through.

We have to keep fighting until we can all marry the person or persons we love.

13 States and counting!

[*Anya*]

New York Times update today:

ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON —

Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court denied on Sunday a request from Proposition 8 supporters in California to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses in the nation’s most populous state.

Justice Kennedy turned away the request with no additional comment.

Same-sex marriage opponents had asked Justice Kennedy to step in on Saturday, a day after the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowed same-sex marriages to go forward. Numerous weddings were performed at San Francisco City Hall after the court decisions. The appeals ruling came a day after the Supreme Court declined to decide the California case, effectively allowing same-sex marriages in the state.

The opponents said the appeals court had acted about three weeks too soon. Proposition 8 supporters could continue their efforts to halt gay marriage by filing their request with another Supreme Court justice.

The Supreme Court decided the case on technical grounds, with the majority saying that it was not properly before the court. Because officials in California had declined to appeal a trial court’s decision against them, and because the proponents of the ban were not entitled to step into the state’s shoes to appeal the decision, the court said, it was powerless to issue a decision.

That left in place a trial court victory for two same-sex couples who had sought to marry.
■

PUBLISHED JUNE 30, 2013