From MSNBC.com

<link>

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

Massachusetts is now the only U.S. state to allow gay marriage. Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont permit same-sex civil unions that grant largely the same state rights as married couples but lack the full, federal legal protections of marriage.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this (ruling)."

An initiative drive is under way in California to change the state constitution to restrict marriage to members of the opposite sex.

I guess now marriage and the family will be destroyed in California the same way that it was in Massachusetts and Canada

one day these people will get that other people's sex lives is noone else's business. and that the word marriage doesn't imbue one with any special powers. The reason marriage is an issue is a question of people having the right to equal benefits of "marriage" for the most part, right?

personally, when it comes to benefits- i wish we could determine individually who should get them anyway. My mom isn't married, for example, so why shouldn't she be allowed to let her adult children use her coverage if she wanted to. Or if she were gay, it could be her partner. Or if she wanted her sister, or her good friend to receive them- why not? What exactly is the purpose of insurance and why do we allow some people access to it and not others? Why should married spouses only be the ones who are allowed to make medical decisions for people? Why can't we dicate who we want to be allowed to make those kinds of decisions or see us in the hospital? And so forth?

Everything in this country is based on old fashioned traditional societal roles that many people don't either believe in or fit into anymore. and society needs to reflect that. It should be a topic that is being discussed more than it is on a broader level than "God doesn't want gays to marry".

They should ban those Hollywood celebrity marriages, they make more a mockery of marriage then any one else.

I'm glad CA has lifted the gay marriage ban. Hope other states follow suit.

"Why can't we dicate who we want to be allowed to make those kinds of decisions or see us in the hospital? And so forth?"

>>>>You can, all you need is an advance health care directive or living will. That will allow the person designated by the document to make the decisions. The marriage contract allows the spouse, so effectively they need it in writting too.

G

"You can, all you need is an advance health care directive or living will. That will allow the person designated by the document to make the decisions. The marriage contract allows the spouse, so effectively they need it in writting too."

That doesn't work so well in an emergency situation, unless you're carrying those documents with you at all times. And even then it can be a hassle to even be allowed back to visit the person, to get a doctor to listen, be allowed to join the decision making process, etc...

My experience with my Dad was that they (hospitals) are pretty casual about it. They asked me if I had one and said I’d need to bring it next time I came. It sounded more like it was for record keeping more than anything, red tape etc. Now I can imagine that it could be a pretty big issue if two different parties are asking them to do different things but if you know you have an adversarial relationship with others who may be involved, it would be best to be prepared for that eventuality, wouldn't it?

G

Marriage is a complex set of rights and relationships. Unless you travel through the world with at least 166 pieces of paper to cover all the rights and responsibilities conferred by marriage, there is no such thing as being prepared I'm glad you could swing it with your dad, but are you truly suggesting that a couple should just hope that the local hospital will be in relaxed mode if one of them has a heart attack?

Marriage also means a lot of things at the federal level - unmarried people must pay taxes on the other 1/2 of inherited property when their partner dies...and they don't get the Social Security or pension benefits. The list goes on and on.

I'm hoping this will be one more learning opportunity for people who already have the right to marry based on nothing more than a drunken impulse. You can carelessly sign over 1/2 of everything you own to someone you might not recognize after the blackout ends, but gay people can 't do the same thing with people they have loved for 25 years.