The California Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it will hear arguments next month challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage. The court said that it has scheduled three hours for oral arguments on March 4. The high court then has 90 days to issue a ruling.
The case dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally. The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom's actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.
Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.
In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was 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.
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. Kramer stayed his ruling while the state appealed.
In October, 2006, the California Court of Appeal in a split decision overturned Kramer's ruling. "The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat," the Appeals Court ruling said. In a dissent, Justice Anthony Kline wrote, "[T]he inescapable effect of the analysis the majority adopts is to diminish the humanity of the lesbian and gay men whose rights are defeated. The right to marry is of fundamental important for all individuals."
The California legislature twice passed legislation that would same-sex couples to marry but both times Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills.
The case dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally. The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom's actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter.
Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case.
In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was 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.
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. Kramer stayed his ruling while the state appealed.
In October, 2006, the California Court of Appeal in a split decision overturned Kramer's ruling. "The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat," the Appeals Court ruling said. In a dissent, Justice Anthony Kline wrote, "[T]he inescapable effect of the analysis the majority adopts is to diminish the humanity of the lesbian and gay men whose rights are defeated. The right to marry is of fundamental important for all individuals."
The California legislature twice passed legislation that would same-sex couples to marry but both times Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills.
No comments:
Post a Comment