Landmark Marriage Case Represents Freedom in July

Separate Rights No Rights Calif. Court Told
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

July 10, 2006 - 5:00 pm ET


(San Francisco, California) A marathon hearing before the California Court of Appeals on Monday offered little that was new in arguments for and against same-sex marriage but nevertheless was an important and necessary step on the way to the state Supreme Court.

Whatever the court decides, the cases, six in all - four for gay marriage and two against, will likely reach the California high court next year.

The three-judge panel of the Appeals Court in San Francisco heard first from attorneys arguing for the status quo.

Deputy Attorney General Christoper Krueger argued that marriage should only be between a man and woman. Krueger told the court that same-sex couples already have almost identical rights to married couples under the state's domestic partner law.

He also said that marriage was an issue for the legislature not the courts.

Not so argued Shannon Minter from the National Center for Lesbian Rights. California's Supreme Court was the first in the nation to overturn laws forbidding interracial marriage.

The legislature has already had its say on same-sex marriage, passing a bill that would legalize gay marriage. The legislation was vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who at the time said the issue should be decided by the courts or by plebiscite.

"[Two of] our clients Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon have been together fifty-three years," said Minter who argued on behalf of a dozen same-sex couples.

"After living to see many anti-gay laws fall by the wayside, [Martin and Lyon] now hope they will live to see the final chapter of this story, when they finally will be treated as full and equal citizens with the same ability to marry as everyone else."

The judges grilled lawyers for the two sides but the most pointed questions were aimed at the Deputy Attorney General.

"We have two kinds of marriage in California,'' Justice J. Anthony Kline said to Kruegger. ``We call one domestic partnership, but is it the same thing? It's kind of a second-class marriage.''

"Is it time for the state to get out of the marriage business altogether and simply issue civil union licenses?'' Justice Joanne Parrilli asked Kruegger.

Outside the court Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Jennifer Pizer said she doubted last week's ruling by New York's highest court would have any bearing on the California case.

"The judges in California are not likely to make the same mistake that the New York Court made when it implied that different-sex couples and their children benefit somehow by maintaining a system that leaves same-sex couples excluded from marriage and unprotected," said Jennifer Pizer.

"California's Attorney General has acknowledged in the [state's arguments] that nothing about gay people makes us unfit for marriage, and is arguing that the discriminatory status quo should remain because the comprehensive domestic partnership status is good enough. But, we're not arguing under the 'good enough' protection clause - it's the equal protection clause."

The cases all arose after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 began allowing marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 gay and lesbian couples married before the state Supreme Court halted the march to the altar.

In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that California law denying same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling. (story)

In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Kramer's ruling was put on hold while the state appealed.

Arguing in court on Monday for San Francisco, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney, said Kramer's ruling should be upheld.

"It tells the world that California believes these relationships are as important as any other couples,'' she said.

The court isn't due to issue its ruling until October.

©365Gay.com 2006

For more analysis of Cal. marriage case,
(and state politics circa 2006-2008-2010),
please see July 11 posting:



http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/07/11/18287024.php

.......