Justices Hear Arguments on Calif. Same-Sex 'Marriage'
The California Supreme Court grilled lawyers from both sides of the same-sex "marriage" case Tuesday in an over 3-hour hearing that centered around whether the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman should be altered.
The case was a consolidation of six lawsuits that arose after the high court voided over 4,000 same-sex "marriage" certificates illegally allowed by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom in a wedding spree at City Hall.
Three suits from disgruntled same-sex couples and one suit from the city of San Francisco are challenging the state's definition of marriage as defined between two people of the opposite sex while two other suits from traditional values groups are looking to preserve the centuries-old social institution.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
At the heart of case is whether a legitimate reason stands why the state's definition of marriage, which was affirmed in 2000 by voters through ballot initiative Proposition 22, should be changed.
The hearing ranged over issues that included the proper role and reach of the courts in a democratic society and whether courts should place themselves ahead of voters or the legislature in defining marriage.
Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the state marriage law in their arguments before the justices.
Therese Stewart, counsel for the City and County of San Francisco, argued that the ban on marriage between same-sex individuals amounted to discrimination against gender or sexual orientation. She invoked the case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down interracial marriage. Justices in that case had recognized an individual's "right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice."
Several justices poked at Stewart's discrimination argument. They cited Proposition 22 and pointed out that California's domestic partnership laws already grant registered same-sex couples virtually identical benefits as married couples .
"Doesn't this really boil down to the use of the M word, marriage?" asked Justice Carlos Moreno.
Some judges also pondered how the state could bar polygamy or underage or immediate family member marriages, but not same-sex "marriages."
During the questioning time for plaintiffs, the case of Perez v. Lippold, in which California struck down the ban on interracial marriage, also came into play.
Justice George asserted that it seemed like a high hurdle to equate sexual orientation with race or gender.
Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger, representing the state of California Krueger, dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints on inequality.
They "talk about domestic partnership as if it's schoolhouse segregation," Krueger told the judges. "Yes, same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry under our laws, but that is not the same type of exclusion."
Glenn Lavy, an attorney representing the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that the law doesn't stop gays and lesbians from marrying – just from marrying someone of the same sex.
He explained that Proposition 22 codified the public policy in California that limited marriage to a man and a woman.
The initiative process was the "ultimate expression of democracy," said Lavy.
In response to a question on the court's role, Lavy said the court should review the constitutionality of the state marriage laws but not rewrite them. He added that the case of Perez did not redefine marriage.
Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel, representing Campaign for California Families, said the legalization of same-sex "marriage" would undermine traditional marriage.
He also noted that the optimal environment for child rearing is in the home of their biological mother and father.
The case reached the high court after the California appellate court in 2006 reversed a 2005 ruling that declared the state marriage law unconstitutional.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed two bills allowing same-sex "marriages," saying voters or the courts should decide the issue.
Massachusetts remains the only state in the nation to recognize a union between same-sex people as marriage.
More than half of U.S. states have passed amendments barring same-sex "marriage." President George W. Bush has proposed a ban on same-sex "marriage" to be written into the U.S. Constitution.
Opponents of gay "marriage" argue that a constitutional ban on such a union is a necessary step for the people to take in order to prevent courts from trumping the will of the people.
New Jersey and Vermont have passed civil union laws similar to those in California.
Justices have 90 days to review arguments and issue a ruling.
