Opening Arguments Delivered in California Same-sex Marriage Case
Same-sex marriage advocates argued that under the equal protection and privacy clauses of the California Constitution, homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry
SAN FRANCISCO – Attorneys representing conservative Californian groups and same-sex marriage advocates will conclude arguments in the consolidated challenges seeking to overturn California’s traditional marriage laws today before a Superior Court judge.
Yesterday, the first day of opening arguments, same-sex marriage advocates argued that under the equal protection and privacy clauses of the California Constitution, homosexuals have a constitutional right to marry.
Currently in California, “marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman,” a definition upheld most recently by voters who approved Proposition 22 in March 2000 and included in an amendment of the California Family Code since 1977.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
But Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, arguing on behalf of the same-sex couples, told Judge Richard Kramer, "History or tradition has never been enough to justify continued discrimination. It certainly isn't here.”
She pointed to measure that would grant gay domestic partnerships the same spousal benefits as married heterosexual couples and said it is discriminatory for the state to deny marriage to gay couples if it recognizes they have those rights. The bill, AB205, which will be taking effect on Jan. 1, 2005, is currently being challenged by Campaign for Children and Families and Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, the same two groups defending the state’s marriage laws in court on Wednesday.
Attorney Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, representing Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund summed the aim of the same-sex marriage advocates as “not seeking access to the traditional institution of marriage," but “seeking to redefine marriage."
"The proponents are asking the court to destroy the cornerstone of a large building without considering the ramifications," Lavy said before Kramer. "If your honor finds the marriage laws must be available for same-sex couples, you will be likely creating a constitutional right to incestuous and group marriage."
Lavy also said that only in marriage between a man and a woman could there be procreation.
Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart noted that once interracial marriages were banned but now are allowed. The changes to marriage have not been detrimental to the institution, she said.
Arguing on behalf of Campaign for Children and Families, Liberty Counsel attorney Rena Lindevaldsen said the state had both a rational and compelling basis for protecting the exclusivity of marriage for a man and a woman, including for the sake of children.
“It is proven that children who are raised in homes by a mother and a father, which by nature is the only coupling able to produce children, are in the most healthy and stable environment,” she explained in a press release on Thursday.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro, representing the state, told the judge that traditional marriage between a man and woman should be preserved, adding that the state is already planning to offer domestic partnership benefits for homosexuals. Any changes to the marriage laws should be dealt with by the Legislature, he said.
Kramer said he would rule whether the state’s marriage laws are constitutional sometime after mid-January. The case is expected to reach the California Supreme Court within two years.
