This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/americas/8068019.stm
The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Version 3 | Version 4 |
---|---|
California backs gay marriage ban | |
(about 1 hour later) | |
California's Supreme Court has upheld a ban on same-sex marriage - the latest twist in a long-running saga. | |
The judges rejected a challenge from gay-rights activists to overturn the result of a 2008 referendum which restricted marriage to heterosexuals. | |
Prior to the vote, same-sex marriages were legal for six months, during which 18,000 couples were married. | |
The judges ruled that those couples could still be regarded as being legally married. | |
Last November voters backed Proposition 8 - a proposal restricting marriage to heterosexual couple. | |
But activists lodged a challenge to it, arguing the measure violated the civil rights of gay couples. | But activists lodged a challenge to it, arguing the measure violated the civil rights of gay couples. |
PROPOSITION 8 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California | PROPOSITION 8 Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognised in California |
The campaign over November's vote cost more than $80m (£51m) - the most expensive ballot measure on a social issue in US history. | The campaign over November's vote cost more than $80m (£51m) - the most expensive ballot measure on a social issue in US history. |
Opponents of the ban - which was passed by Californian voters on 4 November, by 52.3% to 47.7% - argue that the rights of a minority should be constitutionally protected and not liable to be voted away by a simply majority. | Opponents of the ban - which was passed by Californian voters on 4 November, by 52.3% to 47.7% - argue that the rights of a minority should be constitutionally protected and not liable to be voted away by a simply majority. |
CALIFORNIA GAY MARRIAGE TIMELINE 2004: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom instructs clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples - a move annulled by Supreme Court months laterMay 2008: California Supreme Court votes 4-3 to legalise same-sex marriage; introduced in JuneNovember 2008: Californian voters narrowly approve Proposition 8, backed by religious/conservative activists, limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. Rights activists swiftly challenge legality of referendumMarch 2009: Civil rights lawyers argue before Supreme Court that referendum is anti-constitutionalMay 2009: Californian Supreme Court to rule on whether Proposition 8 is constitutional - and whether to outlaw an estimated 18,000 existing gay marriages | |
"Proposition 8 changes the basic nature of our government from one in which the majority protects the rights of minorities," said Shannon Minter, lead counsel for those seeking to overturn the measure. | "Proposition 8 changes the basic nature of our government from one in which the majority protects the rights of minorities," said Shannon Minter, lead counsel for those seeking to overturn the measure. |
"It takes away the right to be treated with equal dignity and respect. A simple majority cannot be allowed to take any rights away from a historically protected minority," she said, quoted by AFP news agency. | "It takes away the right to be treated with equal dignity and respect. A simple majority cannot be allowed to take any rights away from a historically protected minority," she said, quoted by AFP news agency. |
But before giving their ruling, some judges indicated they would be extremely reluctant to overrule the will of the people as expressed in the vote. | |
The court should not "willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the state constitution as they have in the past", said Judge Joyce Kennard, according to AFP. | The court should not "willy-nilly disregard the will of the people to change the state constitution as they have in the past", said Judge Joyce Kennard, according to AFP. |
Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five states - Massachusetts, the first state to legalise it in 2004, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa - but is subject to the continuing national tug of war over the issue. | Same-sex marriage is currently legal in five states - Massachusetts, the first state to legalise it in 2004, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Iowa - but is subject to the continuing national tug of war over the issue. |
Opponents who were expecting the decision in California to go their way indicated they might set their sights on seeing same-sex marriage overturned in Iowa. | |
DIVISIVE ISSUE Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and IowaIllegal in all other states | |
But supporters of same-sex marriage are likely to try to force another referendum in California. | |
Like several other states, California allows same-sex couples to enter "domestic partnerships", which afford many of the same rights as marriage. | Like several other states, California allows same-sex couples to enter "domestic partnerships", which afford many of the same rights as marriage. |
But activists say such partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. | But activists say such partnerships are not equivalent to marriage. |