Calif. High Court to Hear Landmark Same-Sex 'Marriage' Cases
Final briefs were submitted to the California Supreme Court Tuesday, positioning the court to schedule a hearing over the constitutionality of same-sex "marriages."
Under federal law, the United States government only recognizes marriage as defined as a union between a man and a woman – a traditional view of marriage that has spanned centuries. Over 61 percent of California voters approved a similar law in 2000.
The California appeals court last year upheld the state definition of marriage, rejecting the notion that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The decision overturned a 2005 ruling by a lower court in San Francisco.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The California Supreme Court will review the 2006 ruling through six lawsuits – four of which were filed by the city of San Francisco and same-sex couples in support of same-sex "marriage."
Two traditional values groups, the Campaign for California Families (CCF) and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, have filed lawsuits in defense of the current definition of marriage.
Many conservative and religious groups such as the American Center for Law and Justice also filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the two groups.
Tuesday was the deadline for filing written briefs responding to amicus briefs.
Liberty Counsel, a Christian legal group representing CCF, was among those who submitted written briefs Tuesday.
In the brief, the group argues: "The definition of marriage as the union of one woman and one man has transcended law, geography, social custom and religious rights for millennia. Nothing has been presented to this court, either by the parties or by the amici, to change that reality."
Liberty Counsel's brief responded to a total of forty-five amicus briefs, including one from African American Pastors of California, which contends, "The analogy [of same-sex marriage] to racial discrimination is not only false, it is destructive."
Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said it is not the court's position to alter a social institution.
"Virtually every court that has considered challenges to traditional marriage has correctly concluded that the matter of marriage should be decided by the people, not by the courts. Courts are not proselytizing engines of radical social change," said Staver in a statement Wednesday.
"Marriage between one man and one woman is a historically shared value that transcends time," he continued. "Untying the knot that holds together traditional marriage will unravel the family, destabilize the culture, and hurt children."
Several major cities in the state have submitted amicus briefs asking the court to change state laws banning same-sex "marriage." The city of Sacramento decided last week to join cities including Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, Oakland, and San Jose, in backing the city of San Francisco.
Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said a court hearing is expected to take place "within a few months," reported CBS5.com.
The court has three months to issue a written decision following the hearing.
Currently, Massachusetts is the only state that recognizes marriage between two people of the same sex.
In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had allowed nearly 4,000 same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses and wed. That same year, however, the California Supreme Court ruled that Newsom had overstepped his authority and declared the licenses invalid.
