http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage

SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

Demonstrators outside the court yelled "shame on you!"

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California Constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."

They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

The announcement of the decision set off an outcry among a sea of demonstrators who had gathered in front of the San Francisco courthouse awaiting the ruling. Holding signs and many waving rainbow flags, they yelled "shame on you." Many people also held hands in a chain around an intersection in an act of protest.

Gay rights activists immediately promised to resume their fight, saying they would go back to voters as early as next year in a bid to repeal Proposition 8.

The split decision provided some relief for the 18,000 gay couples who married in the brief time same-sex marriage was legal last year but that wasn't enough to dull the anger over the ruling that banned gay marriage.

"It's not about whether we get to stay married. Our fight is far from over," said Jeannie Rizzo, 62, who was one of the lead plaintiffs along with her wife, Polly Cooper. "I have about 20 years left on this earth, and I'm going to continue to fight for equality every day."

Also in the crowd gathered at City Hall, near the courthouse, were Sharon Papo, 30, and Amber Weiss, 32, who were married on the first day gay marriage was legal last year, June 17.

"We're relieved our marriage was not invalidated, but this is a hollow victory because there are so many that are not allowed to marry those they love," Weiss said.

"I feel very uncomfortable being in a special class of citizens," Papo said.

The state Supreme Court had ruled last May that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to wed. Many same-sex couples had rushed to get married before the November vote on Proposition 8, fearing it could be passed. When it was, gay rights activists went back to the court arguing that the ban was improperly put to voters and amounted to a revision — which required legislative approval — not an amendment.

That was the issue justices decided Tuesday.

"After comparing this initiative measure to the many other constitutional changes that have been reviewed and evaluated in numerous prior decisions of this court, we conclude Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment rather than a constitutional revision," the ruling said.

Justice Carlos Moreno wrote the dissenting opinion disagreeing that the proposition did not change the constitution's equal protection clause. He said the law denying same-sex couples the right to wed "strikes at the core of the promise of equality that underlies our California Constitution." He said it represents a "drastic and far-reaching change."

"Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all," said Moreno, who had been mentioned as a possible contender for the U.S. Supreme Court. "Promising treatment that is almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment."

great news!

epic lulz

Seeing that the 18,000 or so same sex couples remained married what the court actually did was say that the people had the right to amend their own constitution.

Leave gay people alone.
If they want to suffer like straight people with high divorce rate, then let them get marry.

What is the point of gay getting marry?
Marriage is for people who want to start a family, or unless being married provides some sort of benefits.

I personally believe gay/lesbian are the most promiscuous people ever, which is a bad thing, but they're not child molestors,
like most straight people. lol

Personally, I don't hate gay/lesbian; however,
marriage is between a man and a woman (not according to the bible), but according
to the cultural norms of every societies.

There are benefits. We are talking about marriage from a legal standpoint, not a religious one. It's not like people are asking the Vatican to pass an encyclical justifying gay marriage within the Catholic Chuch. What's being asked is simply the same benefits that all other married couples receive.

The ban itself was actually pretty shocking to me simply because it doesn't seem like a tall order, even for countries where homosexuality is seen with much dismay and scorn, like America.

See, why not provide equal benefits for everyone?
gay and lesbian people would stop fighting for marriage rights if that only what they're seeking
to get which I personally feel that they're fighting not for marriage, but benefits that legal partners are able to get.

Kind of stupid if you think about it. lol

Also to be considered "equal" would require the same wording, if you now what I mean.

Sure you can give everyone the same benefits but if "the gays" get "civil unions" while everyone else gets "marriages", that's not exactly equal, is it?

I suppose that's what makes the pill a little harder to swallow for some.

That sucks. That is one step backwards for America, especially for a state like California.

Well at least there's Iowa and New England that these gay couples can move to.

I know, it horrible, and I really feel for them even if it is "unnatural", they should be given the rights. if chritians don't want to consider them married, then they don't have to just like they do now, but I think the rightsd should be gievn to them as partners.
funny thing about that is, of all places, you'd think iowa would ban it instead of calirforina.