Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Update from Hearing on Constitutionality of California Marriage Law
Legal argument has just ended in the historic litigation challenging California’s discriminatory marriage laws brought by 12 couples, Equality California and our Families Coalition. Lead counsel Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, urged the Court to put an end to the irrational and discriminatory exclusion of lesbian and gay couples from civil marriage.
Final Update from Hearing on Constitutionality of California Marriage Law
December 23, 2004
5:00 p.m.
Legal argument has just ended in the historic litigation challenging California’s discriminatory marriage laws brought by 12 couples, Equality California and our Families Coalition. Lead counsel Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, urged the Court to put an end to the irrational and discriminatory exclusion of lesbian and gay couples from civil marriage.
Attorneys for the State of California continued to rely entirely on “tradition” as a reason to justify discrimination and noted that gays and lesbians can get married, just not to their partners. Anti-gay organizations persisted in their claims that procreation is the purpose of marriage, something not supported by evidence and a policy already rejected by the State of California when it enacted AB205, California’s new domestic partnership law.
The Judge requested final written submissions by January 14, 2005 and has 90 days from January 14, 2005 to issue his ruling. The Judge noted the importance of this issue and stated that he intended to issue his decision in an expedited manner.
National Center for Lesbian Rights did an incredible job in this case as lead counsel; our community is so very fortunate to have them litigating for us. Having read the briefs and listened to the presentation and rebuttal by NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, I am convinced that we will be victorious in this litigation and that marriage equality will be a reality here in California. As a community, we are in excellent hands and lucky to have NCLR arguing on our behalf. We also greatly appreciate all the work by co-counsel in this case: ACLU, Law Office of David Codell, Heller Ehrman, LLP, Lambda Legal and Steefel Levitt & Weiss.
Thank you to each of you for all you have done to support us during this critical time.
Happy Holidays!
Warmly,
Geoffrey Kors
Executive Director
EQCA is a 501(c)4 organization to which donations are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Live Update No. 3 from Hearing on Constitutionality of California Marriage Law
December 23, 2004
1:00 p.m.
The hearing on the challenge to California’s discriminatory marriage laws brought by 12 couples, Equality California and Our Families Coalition continued this morning. Attorneys for anti-gay organizations argued that the state should exclude lesbians and gay men from marriage to promote “the ideal family”, arguing that families in which children are raised by parents other than their biological parents are “less than ideal.”
“The anti-gay groups reached a new low today when they condemned all children whose parents use adoption or reproductive technology to create stable, loving families, regardless of their sexual orientation, as ‘less than ideal,’” said Kate Kendell, Esq., Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “Such remarks reveal how extreme these groups are, and how out of touch they are with established family law in California. The majority of parents who use reproductive technology or who adopt children in California are heterosexual. To label these families as “less than ideal” and claim that children raised by non-biological parents are somehow inferior in an effort to smear families headed by same-sex couples is outrageous and cruel.”
The Attorney General's lawyer maintained that tradition provides sufficient reason to allow marriage discrimination to continue in California despite conceding that lesbian and gay couples are in relationships that are as stable, loving and committed as those of heterosexual couples.
“If tradition alone was sufficient justification for allowing discriminatory laws to remain on the books, we would still have a ban on interracial marriage, prohibit divorce and consider wives to be the property of their husbands,” said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, an organization plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Legal briefs and other information about the California marriage equality cases are available at http://www.nclrights.org.
The hearing is expected to conclude this afternoon.
We will continue to keep you updated.
Thank you for your continued support.
Warmly,
Geoffrey Kors
Executive Director
EQCA is a 501(c)4 organization to which donations are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.
December 23, 2004
1:00 p.m.
The hearing on the challenge to California’s discriminatory marriage laws brought by 12 couples, Equality California and Our Families Coalition continued this morning. Attorneys for anti-gay organizations argued that the state should exclude lesbians and gay men from marriage to promote “the ideal family”, arguing that families in which children are raised by parents other than their biological parents are “less than ideal.”
“The anti-gay groups reached a new low today when they condemned all children whose parents use adoption or reproductive technology to create stable, loving families, regardless of their sexual orientation, as ‘less than ideal,’” said Kate Kendell, Esq., Executive Director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “Such remarks reveal how extreme these groups are, and how out of touch they are with established family law in California. The majority of parents who use reproductive technology or who adopt children in California are heterosexual. To label these families as “less than ideal” and claim that children raised by non-biological parents are somehow inferior in an effort to smear families headed by same-sex couples is outrageous and cruel.”
The Attorney General's lawyer maintained that tradition provides sufficient reason to allow marriage discrimination to continue in California despite conceding that lesbian and gay couples are in relationships that are as stable, loving and committed as those of heterosexual couples.
“If tradition alone was sufficient justification for allowing discriminatory laws to remain on the books, we would still have a ban on interracial marriage, prohibit divorce and consider wives to be the property of their husbands,” said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, an organization plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Legal briefs and other information about the California marriage equality cases are available at http://www.nclrights.org.
The hearing is expected to conclude this afternoon.
We will continue to keep you updated.
Thank you for your continued support.
Warmly,
Geoffrey Kors
Executive Director
EQCA is a 501(c)4 organization to which donations are not deductible as charitable contributions for income tax purposes.
umm, yeah, and freedom is slavery, and ignorance is bliss...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/12/24/BAGEEAGK9K1.DTL
......
Can the state of California show some rational and strong
reason WHY it should be allowed to over-ride the rights of queers?
(As, for example, it over-rides the rights of two children who wish to marry; or of two closely-related persons?)
The state merely cited tradition. That's weak, but rational.
The fundi lawyers went wild, arguing that two men shouldn't wed because they can't make a baby together; and that traditional marriage protects children.
The City zapped these insane arguments; pointing out that California allows traditional marriages by infertile couples; and even by persons who have already shown themselves to be dangerous to kids.
......
Can the state of California show some rational and strong
reason WHY it should be allowed to over-ride the rights of queers?
(As, for example, it over-rides the rights of two children who wish to marry; or of two closely-related persons?)
The state merely cited tradition. That's weak, but rational.
The fundi lawyers went wild, arguing that two men shouldn't wed because they can't make a baby together; and that traditional marriage protects children.
The City zapped these insane arguments; pointing out that California allows traditional marriages by infertile couples; and even by persons who have already shown themselves to be dangerous to kids.
For more information:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...
privilege equality is not liberation--
the right wing nuts are the gay marriage advocates!!!!!!!!!!!!
the right wing nuts are the gay marriage advocates!!!!!!!!!!!!
privilege equality is not liberation--
the right wing nuts are the gay marriage advocates!!!!!!!!!
the right wing nuts are the gay marriage advocates!!!!!!!!!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network