Moving Forward to the White Dress

[+ Lucky]

Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

 

By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

 

SAN FRANCISCO - A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

 

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

 

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

 

 

The judge 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 ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

 

The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.

 

Two legal groups representing religious conservatives joined with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in defending the existing laws and had vowed to appeal if Kramer did not rule in their favor.

 

Lockyer's office has said it expects the matter eventually will have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

[trilingual]

A link to the complete decision is on http://www.sfgate.com. In spite of screams of "liberal judicial activism" by the usual suspects, the judge in this case is a Catholic Republican appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson. The decision, while not as eloquent as the one in New York State, carefully demolishes the arguments used by opponents to gay marriage and makes it clear that the laws, as they now stand, violate the equal protection provisions of the California Constitution. The arguments in this case, as well as the New York and Massachussetts cases, will eventually find their way into a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, because the arguments are equally applicable to the federal equal protection provision in the 14th Amendment.

 

Matters could be derailed for a while if California, like some other states, passes an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution. State constitutions, however, cannot include provisions that violate the U.S. constitution, so the U.S. Supreme Court could strike down anti-gay amendments as violating the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution. States are allowed to extend GREATER rights and protections to their citizens than the U.S. constitution affords, but they can't provide LESS than the U.S. constitution requires. Since the analysis and legal reasoning in these state cases is identical to the analysis and legal reasoning in federal equal protection cases, it's reasonable to predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will adopt the same reasoning.

 

Notably, this California case was based ONLY on the equal protection provisions. The judge found it unnecessary to look into the privacy and liberty protections, because once a law is found unconstitutional on one set of grounds, it's unnecessary to find it unconstitutional on all other grounds. Of course, any arguments made to the U.S. Supreme Court will cover all the bases, giving the Court the option to pick which (if not all) of the bases it will cover in any decision it makes. However, sooner or later Antonin Scalia's bitter prediction (and worst nightmare) will come true: as a result of the Lawrence v. Texas decision, gay marriage will be legalized in the U.S., barring any contrary amendment to the U.S. constitution.

[joel304]

I wouldn't count on the US Supreme Court to rule in our favor. These types of highly divided political cases are often not heard by the Court, or are deferred to state interpretation and legislation. For this to succeed, we would need a more "radical" Court. The prospect for this grows worse as the days pass.

 

The California Judge found that the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution was violated, and that others might have been as well. Thankfully, in his decision, he only expounded on one violation. In doing this, should the California Supreme Court find that the Equal Protection Clause was not violated, or within the scope of this argument, the lower courts can still strike down further aggression against rights under different points. Rather than criticize his opinion, as many have done, it is worthwhile to note his wisdom in saying less, rather than more. This interpretation will offer greater leeway should future decisions of higher courts make this necessary.

[Guest soccerstud]

I guess I'm more optimistic than Joel on a future US Supreme Court outcome. This Court--even with Scalia et al--has struck down the Colorado anti-gay initiative, as well as last year ruling Texas' sodomy law unconstitutional (albeit with Scalia issuing a mean spirited and vitriolic anti-gay dissent). In addition to the "privacy" angle, the Court, in evaluating equal protection, will have to get around the unequal treatment of married straights and "ineligible" gays as to all sorts of financial issues (social security benefits, wide tax disparities as to income tax brackets and estate tax marital deduction, eligibility for health care benefits). But the 5-4 decisions underscore the importance of who retires and who is appointed to the Court over the next few years. All the more reason to support organizations like the Campaign for Human Rights and People For the American Way.

[joel304]

These issues, while significant, were nowhere near the scope of marriage. Clear initiatives to discriminate against groups are easier to support than licensing as it relates to states.