State lifts marriage ban
By Allison Fung
May 15, 2008 10:27 p.m.
In a highly anticipated decision Thursday, the California Supreme Court lifted the ban on same-sex marriage ““ a major victory for the LGBT community on campus and across the state.
In a 4-3 majority, the court ruled that denying same-sex couples the right to marry was against the California Constitution.
“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,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote in the ruling.
The decision is significant, given that California is the nation’s most populous state and has 92,000 same-sex couples. The state is known for being a cultural and social “trendsetter”: In 1948, it became the second state in the nation to legalize interracial marriage.
The decision is already making an impact on members of the UCLA community.
Stephanie Apoboca, a first-year business economics student, said her mother ““ who is gay ““ has already contacted the courthouse to make arrangements to marry her partner.
“I’m really surprised,” Apoboca said. “I thought I was going to grow up fighting for this. I don’t think the decision has hit us yet.”
Apoboca said the court’s ruling gives marriage a new meaning.
“(Same-sex couples) are actually going to be able to go to a courthouse and be recognized. That’s something that’s going to impact them,” she said.
Apoboca said she knew the ruling would not be universally popular on campus, but she hopes it will encourage students to engage in dialogue on same-sex marriage.
“There’s definitely going to be conflict, but it’s going to bring out voices. Hopefully it will be more positive than negative,” she said.
Leaders of LGBT student groups at UCLA were thrilled by the ruling.
“It’s a monumental decision,” said Julio Rodriguez, former chairman of the Queer Alliance. “It really gives (the LGBT community) a lot of hope.”
Rodriguez said he hopes other states will follow Massachusetts’ and California’s lead.
“I hope we can rally around the state’s decision,” he said. “We need to commend the governor on upholding the court’s decision, and we need to commend the state’s court as well.”
Not everyone at UCLA shared Rodriguez’ satisfaction.
Daniel Chung, a second-year English student, said he did not support same-sex marriage but noted that the government’s actions had no bearing on his personal beliefs.
“If (same-sex marriage) is popular enough that people want it, that’s the way democracy works,” he said.
Seth Hansen, a fourth-year economics student, said it was not the government’s duty to rule on same-sex marriage.
“It’s a moral issue, not one that should be brought up by the state and government,” said Hansen.
Past attempts made in the state’s government to legalize same-sex marriage have failed.
In 2005 and 2007, the state Senate passed legislature allowing same-sex marriage. In both cases, the bills were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
After Thursday’s ruling was handed down, Schwarzenegger said he will assist in implementing the decision.
“I respect the court’s decision, and as governor I will uphold its ruling,” Schwarzenegger said.
In March 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. About 4,000 same-sex couples were married before the initiative was halted by the state Supreme Court. In the aftermath, two dozen same-sex couples and advocate groups filed suit against the state of California.
The court’s ruling Thursday was a conclusion to the lawsuit.
“This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us,” said Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity.”
The court’s ruling heralds the beginning of a long fight for supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage.
Religious and social groups are already garnering support for a state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage to be put on the November ballot.
“The remedy is a constitutional amendment. The constitution defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the conservative group Alliance Defense Fund.
If the amendment is passed by voters, it will overturn the court’s decision Thursday.
Rodriguez acknowledged the court’s decision may only be temporary.
“We really need to spread the word. We really need to advocate this issue,” he said. “It’s not over.”
With reports from Bruin wire services.
