California's marriage law unconstitutional

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SFGate.
The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/03/14/state/n121337S24.DTL
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 14, 2005 (AP)
Judge finds California's marriage law unconstitutional
By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer


(03-14) 12:39 PST San Francisco (AP) --

A judge ruled Monday that California can no longer justify limiting
marriage to a man and a woman, a legal milestone that if upheld on appeal
would pave the way for the nation's most populous state to follow
Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

In an opinion that had been awaited because of San Francisco's historical
role as a gay rights battleground, 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 unconstitutional denial of equal protection for
gays and lesbians and their right to marry.

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

Kramer's decision came in a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn
California's statutory ban on gay marriage. They were brought by the city
of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March, after the
California Supreme Court halted the four-week marriage spree Mayor Gavin
Newsom had initiated when he directed city officials to issue marriage
licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just
California, that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all
California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

Robert Tyler, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund,
said the group would appeal Kramer's ruling.

It could be months or years before the state actually sanctions same-sex
marriage, if it sanctions the unions at all. The Alliance Defense Fund and
another legal group representing religious conservatives joined with
California's attorney general in defending the existing laws.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the
matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme
Court.

Therese Stewart, attorney for the city and county of San Francisco said
today's decision is historic, setting the framework for future challenges
in state appeals courts and at the ballot box that eventually will
determine that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.

"It's a foregone conclusion that it's going to go up on appeal," Stewart
said.

Meanwhile, 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 follow the 13 other states that approved such
amendments last year, that would put the issue out of the control of
lawmakers and the courts.

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs and their lawyers said Kramer's ruling was a
milestone for California, akin to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision
that made California the first state in the nation to legalize interracial
marriage.

The decision is the latest development in a national debate on the
legality and morality of same-sex marriage that has been raging since
2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay
couples the right to wed was unconstitutional in that state.

In the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay rights advocates filed
lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage laws in several other
states, and opponents responded by proposing state and federal
constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Kramer is the fourth trial court judge in recent months to decide that the
right to marry and its attendant benefits must be extended to same-sex
couples. Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate
cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's
constitution, and on Feb. 4, a judge in Manhattan ruled in favor of five
gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses by New York City. That
ruling applies only in the city but could extend statewide if upheld on
appeal. Similar cases are pending in trial courts in Connecticut and
Maryland.

Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however,
refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays and lesbians from
marrying violates their civil rights. A New Jersey judge dismissed a
lawsuit brought by seven gay couples fighting to have their unions legally
recognized. Most recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals in January upheld
that state's gay marriage ban. All the cases are on appeal.

The California lawsuits have been closely watched. The state has the
highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature
has gone further than any other in voluntarily providing gay couples the
perks of marriage without a court order.

Since Jan. 1, same-sex couples registering as domestic partners in
California are granted virtually all the rights and responsibilities of
marriage, including access to divorce courts, the ability to collect child
support and the responsibility for a partner's debts. So in California,
the arguments for striking down the gay marriage ban have centered as much
on the social meaning of marriage as the benefits it affords as a legal
institution.

The couples, represented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, the
Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, conceded that
California's domestic partnership law may be the strongest in the nation
outside of Vermont's civil unions. But they claimed it still does not go
far enough because it creates a separate and inherently unequal
marriage-like institution for same-sex couples.

The Attorney General's Office maintained that tradition dictates that
marriage should be restricted to opposite-sex couples. Lockyer also cited
the state's domestic partners law as evidence that California does not
discriminate against gays.

Kramer rejected that argument, citing Brown vs. Board of Education, the
landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down segregated schools.

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of
a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal," the
judge wrote.

Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California
Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued
that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to
opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2005 AP