[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Maya Harris
Executive Director
ACLU of Northern California

Today is the day we’ve been working for—a watershed for basic fairness and human dignity. The California Supreme Court has recognized that equality means that everyone must be free to marry the person they love.

Profound social change starts in California, and does not end here. It influences the rest of the nation. Today’s decision means that Californians will extend the franchise of fairness to gay and lesbian couples who enter into the committed, loving relationship we call “marriage.” And this decision will take its rightful historic place alongside those that have formally recognized what we, as Americans, have always aspired to: a more perfect, more egalitarian union of free people, free to choose our destiny, including whom to marry.

Californians consider bans on interracial marriage an embarrassing relic of bigotry—and so does the rest of the country. But in 1948, when the California Supreme Court struck down the state law barring interracial marriage, it blazed a brave new path for California and the nation. That decision changed California, and then it changed America.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

Many have already commented on the California Supreme Court ruling this morning recognizing that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to same sex couples. Important is one from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Governor, whose attorneys sought to uphold California statutes and voter approved initiative which did not recognize same sex marriage, has reiterated his opposition to any ballot initiatives or others measures in this area, including ones to try to overturn the Court’s decision.

In a statement released, the Governor said: “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.”

California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, in her second full day in her new position, had this to say:

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

As an attorney, my practice upon receiving a ruling from a court, in particular an appellate or reviewing court, has been to take the decision and read from the first page and not immediately go to the concluding paragraphs indicating how the court had ruled and who “won” the case. I have finished reading the court’s decision and the concurring and dissenting opinions and I’m glad I kept up my practice.

In a 4-3 ruling, the California Supreme Court ruled that, even though domestic partnership laws in our state give substantially the same rights and impose substantially the same responsibilities on those who choose to enter into same sex unions, that calling them by a different name—and not marriage—is discriminatory and violates the equal protection and privacy clauses of the California Constitution. My copy of the decision is full of yellow highlights.

When I got to the end of the Court’s decision, I came to the conclusion that, unlike the thousands of cases I have handled, no one really “lost” in this case. The Court explained in great detail how this decision takes away nothing from those, such as myself, who are married to a person of the opposite sex and who take pride in describing ourselves—and our son—as a family.

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Over the flip, I'll be posting some legislator's remarks on the marriage decision.  I'll only get a few now, so any editors should feel free to add some or throw them in the comments.

[courtesy of The California Majority Report]

The California Supreme Court today just overturned California's ban on mariage equality. CMR will have more later, but this means California will be the second state in the nation to allow all couples the right to marry.

by Be_Devine [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

4-3 DECISION!!   THE GOOD GUYS AND GALS WON!!!!!

The decision can be read here.

The conclusion of the majority is:

in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples.  In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand.

The Court goes on to say: "

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Robert Cruickshank

I hate when history repeats itself. This year's May Revise budget proposal has some ugly similarities with last year's, particularly when it comes to public transportation cuts. In May 2007 Arnold proposed a $1.3 billion cut to mass transit. Ultimately $700 million was slashed, bringing to a halt transit projects around the state designed to help commuters get out of their cars and avoid the crippling impact of soaring gas prices.

Now, Arnold is proposing to raid public transportation funds again, to avoid tax increases. John Laird's budget overview makes clear that Arnold intends to cut over $400 million from state assistance to local public transit. This is an act of madness, as Californians are crying out for alternatives to the car. Ridership on local transit systems is soaring, but these systems are also being squeezed financially by rising fuel costs - especially diesel costs (which here in Monterey are just under $5 per gallon).