(May 16, 2008) -- A sharply divided (4-3) CA Supreme Court has held that Prop 22, a state statute enacted by roughly 61% of CA voters in 2000 which stated that only marriage between a man and woman is valid and recognized in CA, violates protections in CA's constitution.

In a decision flashed on LBReport.com's front page just minutes after its May 15 release, Chief Justice Ronald George wrote (joined by Justices Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno) for the majority

...As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own -- and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family -- constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, 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, and, more generally, that an individuals sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, 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...

...In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry -- and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society -- the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.

It is true, of course, that as an historical matter in this state marriage always has been limited to a union between a man and a woman. Tradition alone, however, generally has not been viewed as a sufficient justification for perpetuating, without examination, the restriction or denial of a fundamental constitutional right...

...[W]e conclude that the right to marry, as embodied in article I, sections 1 and 7 of the California Constitution, guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage.

In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote, with concurrence by Justice Ming W. Chin:

Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority's startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage -- an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law -- is no longer valid.

California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority...

[A] bare majority of this court, 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...[T]he majority invents a new constitutional right, immune from the ordinary process of legislative consideration. The majority finds that our Constitution suddenly demands no less than a permanent redefinition of marriage, regardless of the popular will...

I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature's own weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat the People's will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative interference.

To access the Supreme Court opinion in full (including majority, concurring and dissenting opinions), click here.

Supporters of same-gender "marriage equality" hailed the Court's ruling as potentially far reaching, inviting similar decisions by courts across the country...and allowing same sex couples from other states to wed in California and then expect other states to respect those marriages as valid.

Opponents of same-sex marriage predicted the action would increase support for a November 2008 ballot measure (dubbed by its proponents the "California Marriage Protection Act") which would elevate the ban on same-sex marriage to the state constitution where it would be outside the reach of the May 15 CA Supreme Court opinion.

The proposed Nov. 2008 ballot measure states "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Proponents say they've submitted more than a million signatures and expect their measure will qualify for the ballot.

In a written statement, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stated, "I respect the Court's decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

In a written statement, Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal said, "I am quite pleased that the CA Supreme Court has rejected the state's ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional, and I congratulate my friends in the gay and lesbian community who have worked to reverse this injustice for many years. It's a joyous day for all who believe in equality."

And likewise in a written statement, Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal said, "I am relieved to hear that the State Supreme Court has rejected the ban on same-sex marriage, and I am proud of our City Council for lending its voice to this struggle for equal rights under the Constitution. Silence would have been collusion in codifying discrimination."

The Court's ruling comes just days before LB's annual Lesbian & Gay Pride Parade and Festival -- which has grown into the city's second biggest annual event (second only to the Grand Prix). Notwithstanding some ribaldry, the event now includes the participation of major corporations and public officials.

In June 2004, a proposed Council resolution that would have put LB City Hall on record against the Federal Marriage Act (which proposed to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman). That Council proposal failed on an acrimonious 4-4 vote...but barely two years later in October 2006, a new Council voted 9-0 to support marriage licenses for same sex couples.

In the 2004 action, Councilmembers Bonnie Lowenthal, Dan Baker and Tonia Reyes Uranga agendized an item to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment in Congress...an action that filled the Council Chamber beyond capacity with overflow directed to the library auditorium. Mayor O'Neill called a ten minute break before embarking on the item. After the proponents presented the item, 9th district Councilman Val Lerch moved swiftly (seconded by then-8th district Councilman Webb) to receive and file (take no action on it). Testimony ran over an hour.

Following public testimony, Councilman Baker moved a substitute, seconded by Councilwoman Bonnie Lowenthal, to oppose the Federal Marriage Act. 3rd district Councilman/Vice Mayor Frank Colonna then offered a substitute motion (amended by Councilwoman Richardson), seconded by Councilman Carroll, for a resolution supporting only those changes or amendments to the U.S. Constitution that guarantee the right of all men, women, and children to equal protection under the law and opposes amendments that would deny equal protection under the law.

The Colonna substitute as amended by Richardson passed 7-1 (Yes: B. Lowenthal, Baker, Colonna, Carroll, Richardson, Reyes Uranga, Webb. No: Lerch. Absent Kell.) The Baker-Lowenthal motion opposing Federal Marriage Amendment failed 4-4.

The Council has since undergone major changes. Councilmembers Colonna and Carroll have been succeeded by Councilmembers Gary DeLong and Patrick O'Donnell; 5th district Councilwoman Kell has been replaced by Councilwoman Schipske; 8th district Councilman Webb was replaced by Councilwoman Gabelich..and Councilman Baker has been succeeded by Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal. (Richardson has been succeeded by Andrews, who wasn't part of the 2006 Council.)

The Oct. 2006 item, co-agendized by Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal, Vice Mayor Bonnie Lowenthal and 4th district Councilman Patrick O'Donnell, directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution "in support of civil marriage licenses and any enactments which codify civil marriage equality for all couples residing in California who are citizens of the United States and requests our elected representatives in State and Federal government to act with vigor to develop laws to allow marriage equality for same sex couples, defend same sex civil marriages and protect the fundamental liberties of all families."

At the time, Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal spoke to the issue of statewide voter approval of Proposition 22 in March 2000 (restricting marriage to unions between men and women)...which carried in Long Beach by a 56.8% "yes" (citywide) to 43.2% "no." (In L.A. County, Prop 22 had 58.6% voting "yes" and 41.4% voting "no"; in OC, "yes" votes were 69.2% to 30.8% "no.")

13 members of the public spoke in support...including Rev. Jerry Stinson, Senior Minister of the First Congregational Church of Long Beach (United Church of Christ).

"When the issue of marriage equality was discussed previously by this Council [in 2004], the Chambers were full of people reflecting one, single religious perspective: opposing that equality. I'm here today to make it clear that there are many, many religious people, many of us within Christianity, who support marriage equality and support the resolution you're considering tonight," Rev. Stinson said. "Marriage equality should be written into the law of any truly pluralistic society and then individual religious communities can choose for themselves whether they will bless all those legal unions."

Others speaking in support included members of LB's LGBT community...including two LB women who came to the podium (one of whom spoke) and indicated they'd journeyed to San Francisco in 2004 and were married...only to have their marriage license subsequently quashed by the courts.

One LB resident, Larry Goodhue, spoke against the resolution, contending that voting records "if cogently analyzed and extrapolated" show LB's non-heterosexual population is "4.6%." His opinion prompted snickers from audience members...and LB Mayor Bob Foster cautioned the audience for decorum. Mr. Goodhue continued, "Even if you were to double it for the sake of error, that is only rounded off to 10%. That does not constitute a prima facie case to overturn 2,000 years of history."

Among Council comments:

LB Mayor Bob Foster added just before the vote:

Below is the text of a resolution that put the City of LB on record supporting civil marriage licenses for same-sex couples, directed by the City Council (9-0) on Oct. 10, 2006.

[begin text]