SAN FRANCISCO—After a four-year hiatus, same-sex marriage, the hot-button cultural issue that served as a major partisan divide in the last presidential election, is back. Yesterday, the California Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a voter initiative banning same-sex marriage in the state. Its 4-to-3 decision paves the way for California to join Massachusetts as the only states where gay and lesbian couples can legally marry. "It is a precedent-setting case," says Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University. "It's a major victory for proponents of same-sex marriage in the most populous state in the union."

The decision, which legal experts say has far-reaching implications beyond California, ends a legal challenge that began in 2004, when Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, started issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, sparking joyous celebrations in some quarters and outrage in others. That spring, President Bush threw his support behind a federal constitutional amendment that would have redefined marriage as being between a man and a woman. It never passed. The California Supreme Court, meanwhile, voted to annul Newsom's marriages, citing a state law, Proposition 22, passed in 2000 by more than 60 percent of voters, that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the law were filed the next day.

The suits worked their way through the lower courts, and the state Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday that offered unwavering support to the 23 same-sex couples who were plaintiffs. "The real dispute in California was over nomenclature," Kmiec says. Because of California's robust domestic partnership laws, which provide same-sex couples with most of the legal rights and privileges afforded to straight couples, the decision, ultimately, came down to semantics. Should same-sex couples, who are allowed by state law to form families, adopt children, and inherit their partner's assets, be allowed to call their relationships "marriage"?

Writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Ronald George said yes. Three of his colleagues on the bench agreed that gays and lesbians not only enjoy the same fundamental right to marry that straight people do but concluded that preventing them from marrying amounts to a denial of their equal protection rights under the California Constitution. George made a point of emphasizing that banning same-sex marriage qualified, in the court's view, as discrimination: "The statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents—like gender, race, and religion—a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment."

The state's attorneys argued that there was a long history of marriage being between a man and a woman, and that it should therefore remain that way. George rejected the argument out of hand. Although 26 states have constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, California's court found no "compelling state interest" that justifies preventing same-sex couples from marrying. Instead, the court said that calling same-sex and opposite-sex unions by different names gave gay couples the appearance of being "second-class citizens." "We conclude," George wrote, "that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

The court's reasoning raised the eyebrows of some legal scholars, who believe the decision has implications far beyond the boundaries of the state. "It's guaranteed to enrage a lot of people," says Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University. Lumping sexual orientation, in with the law's other most protected classes—gender, race, and religion—is something neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor most civil rights law has done, primarily, experts say, because it would open the door to lawsuits over everything from Social Security benefits to who can serve in the military. Soldiers kicked out of the Army for being gay, for example, will now have some legal support for the argument that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is unconstitutionally discriminatory. The California court's decision isn't binding at the federal level or in any other state, of course. But now that the argument has been made, it will be made again. "There are 1,100 benefits denied gay couples [in California] under federal law," says Kmiec. "What we'll see is an attempt to use this as a precedent." More of Decision on Gay Marriage Has Wide Impact
U.S. News & World Report - Washington,DC,USA

A new California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriages in that state is adding fuel to the push here for a constitutional ban. But the one man who can put that issue up for a final vote to send it to the ballot in November has so far not done that — and is refusing to commit to doing so.

Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, is the prime sponsor of one version of a measure to constitutionally define marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman. And a bill with identical language was approved earlier this week by the House.

But Bee has so far failed to put the measure on the Senate calendar for its action — the only thing standing in the way of sending the issue to voters.

Nor is he guaranteeing that he ever will bring the measure to the Senate.

“Decisions about ballot measures will be made toward the end of (the legislative) session, after the budget’s complete,” he said.

Bee said Republican legislative leaders have to review all of the active proposals to put issues before voters.

  Delay on sending gay marriage ban to Senate vote
East Valley Tribune - Mesa,AZ,USA

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. -- The West Hollywood city council wants to be among the first California agencies to grant wedding licenses to persons of the same sex, and will vote Monday on a request to move to the head of the line.

Two council members in the small city put out a press release Saturday noting West Hollywood's history as a homosexual-friendly place. Abbe Land and John Heilman said they would ask their colleagues Monday to vote on a motion on the issue.

The measure would ask Los Angeles County to expedite the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and to allow the City of West Hollywood to be the first government agency to issue them. Council Wants To Be First To Grant Gay Marriage Licenses
KGTV, 10News.com - San Diego,CA,USA

Gay marriage could end up before US Supreme Court By Howard Mintz
San Jose Mercury News - CA,

It was 1964. Conservative groups across California, angered by a new law aimed at discriminatory housing practices, mobilized to wipe the law off the books by amending the state Constitution.

The initiative was a hit at the ballot box. Two-thirds of the state's voters approved the change in the Constitution. But the new law didn't stick - both the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down, finding that it violated federal equal protection rights.

More than four decades later, that scenario could unfold again in California. This time, however, the issue is gay marriage, and California - because of its situation - may end up being the battleground that ultimately propels this modern day civil rights battle into the U.S. Supreme Court.

With social and religious conservatives moving to erase Thursday's California Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage with a fall ballot initiative, California is in a unique position. While dozens of states have enacted gay marriage bans, none has done so after a state Supreme Court found a legal right for gay couples to wed.

"We'd be in uncharted legal territory," said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, a lead attorney in challenging the gay marriage ban.

The 4-3 state Supreme Court ruling found the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, and declared that gay couples have the same legal right to marry as heterosexual couples.

The

Supreme Court rested its decision solely on the California Constitution, but the constitution would be amended if opponents succeed in getting an initiative passed that would outlaw same-sex marriage. Backers have gathered more than 1 million signatures, with just under 700,000 verified signatures needed to put it on the ballot.

A decision on whether it will reach the ballot is expected in June, about the same time gay couples can begin getting marriage licenses under the Supreme Court ruling.

There's little doubt that the California Supreme Court's ruling would be trumped if the measure passes, legal experts say. It would not only reinstate a gay marriage ban but also place a legal cloud over the marriages of the thousands of same-sex couples who decide to wed in the coming months.

"The California Supreme Court needs to follow the California Constitution, and that is what the majority did on Thursday," said Jennifer Rothman, a Loyola University law professor. "So if a state constitutional amendment passed banning same-sex marriage, the court would have to honor that, at least as a state law matter. That doesn't mean that's the end of the story."

Civil rights groups say they would argue that any initiative, if passed, would not apply retroactively to gay couples who have already married. More important, they would also argue that the initiative violates the federal constitution because same-sex couples are guaranteed rights under the constitution's equal protection language. Therefore not only would the issue likely go back to the California Supreme Court, but possibly shift to the U.S. Supreme Court because federal constitutional questions would be raised.

For gay and lesbian couples that wed in the coming months, the legal uncertainty could put them in a precarious position if the ballot measure passes. The proposed measure does not specifically address same-sex couples that are already married, but reads: "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Glen Lavy, a lawyer for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said his organization would argue any gay marriages would be invalid. He also said the state Supreme Court should put this week's ruling on hold until after the November election to avoid that confusion.

But civil rights lawyers plan to fight for any marriages that take place between June and November.

"Our position certainly would be that once somebody is legally married, you can't undo that," Minter said.

The broader question is whether the ballot initiative would withstand another legal challenge similar to the one mounted against the laws struck down Thursday by the state Supreme Court. This time, federal constitutional rights to equal treatment would be at stake.

Lavy said he is confident the ban would hold up under federal law.

"The federal constitution does not provide for same-sex couples to be included in marriage," he said.

In this week's ruling, the California Supreme Court rejected the argument that they should follow the "will of the people" if a ballot initiative violates a constitutional right.

The court cited the legal challenge over the 1964 housing law, a constitutional amendment which allowed real estate agents and landlords in California to reject home buyers or tenants of their choice, even if it might be based on racial discrimination.

That law, Proposition 14, was struck down in 1967 by the state Supreme Court and, a year later, by the U.S. Supreme Court. The circumstances are different in that there was no state Supreme Court ruling in place when voters approved the housing law - but it nevertheless demonstrates that a constitutional amendment such as one banning gay marriage is not etched in legal stone.

Legal experts are divided over how the U.S. Supreme Court would deal with a gay marriage case if it reaches their docket - not a foregone conclusion given the twists that could take place - but there is general agreement that civil rights lawyers would have an uphill fight with the current conservative majority.

"The federal courts would be looking at what all the states have done," said Vikram Amar, a University of California-Davis law professor. "California is still an outlier."

Contact Howard Mintz at hmintz@mercurynews.com or (408) 286-0236.

RePrintPrint   Email   Return to Top  

Vermont lawmakers are predicting that if the gay marriage debate is resumed next year, the decision in California to allow marriage between same-sex couples could serve as ammunition, according to the Boston Globe.

Bari Shamas of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force noted that "Vermont's civil union law does not go far enough and this California decision matters. The Legislature will have yet another example of why it is important. Each time the wheels turn in that direction it helps create momentum that says this is really the right thing to do."

Opponents of gay marriage agree that the California decision will greatly influence the issue, which is becoming a particularly popular topic of debate.

The California ruling confirmed that the state's previous domestic partnership law, similar to Vermont's civil unions law, is not sufficient in providing equal treatment of same-sex couples. The slim 4-3 ruling abolished California's laws against same sex marriage.

The court's decision, however, could possibly be overturned in November when voters have the chance to vote for an amendment to California's constitution that would reverse the court's decision and make same sex marriages illegal.  California Decision on Gay Marriage Could Influence Vermont
ToTheCenter.com - Malverne,NY,USA

SAN FRANCISCO -- In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court's historic gay marriage ruling Thursday, the decision "weighed most heavily" on Chief Justice Ronald M. George -- more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.

The court was poised 4-3 not only to legalize gay marriage, but to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other court in the nation and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.  

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored," left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

Yet he described his thinking on the constitutional status of state marriage laws as more of an evolution than an epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

See California chief justice says gay marriage ruling was one of his ...
Los Angeles Times - CA,USA

Governor Backs Marriage Ruling

A day after the state Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples should have the right to marry in California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Friday that he supports the court's decision even though his personal view is that "marriage is between a man and a woman."

Advocates of same-sex marriage have praised Schwarzenegger for embracing Thursday's decision, which overturned a voter-approved law allowing only opposite-sex marriage. They also expect him to make good on his promise last month to help fight a new initiative, aimed for the November ballot, that would overturn the court's ruling.

But the Republican governor's stance on same-sex marriage has been curious and confusing to many people. Since his election in 2003, Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed bills to legalize marriage for homosexual couples.

Last month, he appeared to make an about-face, placing himself in the spotlight when he told a group of gay Republicans that he would campaign against the Limit on Marriage initiative. Backers of the measure have submitted more than 1 million signatures to the secretary of state's office, which will decide next month whether the initiative qualifies.

In a meeting with The Chronicle's editorial board on Friday, Schwarzenegger was asked to clarify his position.

"First, I have always said that for me, marriage is between a man and a woman," he said.

Then he added: "But I don't want to make everyone else go in that direction."

Schwarzenegger said he vetoed same-sex marriage legislation because he felt the Legislature shouldn't override voter-approved Proposition 22, which had defined marriage as between a man and a woman and was nullified by the high court on Thursday.

However, the governor said he doesn't necessarily feel the same when it comes to the Supreme Court overturning a statute enacted by a voter initiative.

"When the people vote, people are not legal experts, constitutional experts or any of that," he said. "I think that's why we have the courts. People may vote with good intentions, but then the court says, 'This is not constitutional.'

"It's not that the court interferes with the will of the people," he added. "But the court says, 'You voted for something, but it's not constitutionally right, so let's rework this.' That's really the idea."

While he supports the notion that same-sex couples should enjoy the same protections as heterosexual couples, the governor said same-sex marriage is not something that he has felt strongly about. He added that he has attended ceremonies for domestic partnerships.

Schwarzenegger's outspoken rejection of the proposed Limit on Marriage initiative gives the opposition campaign a huge lift, said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at Sacramento State University.

John J. Pitney Jr., a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, said the biggest boost that the governor can have in that campaign would be in fundraising.

Meanwhile, Republican campaign consultant Kevin Spillane said he believes that the proposed measure, if it qualifies for the fall ballot, could lift the Republican Party's "dispirited conservative base."

But just how that might play out in the presidential or other local elections will be complicated to figure out, he said.

"Gay marriage is a tough issue for both parties," he said. "You'll have socially moderate and younger Republican voters who may be more supportive of gay marriage, but then you also have African American and Latino Democratic voters who are more socially conservative."

Schwarzenegger said he doesn't think same-sex marriages in the coming months will stir up Californians much.

"I think life will go on as usual," he said.