|
Calif. High Court to Rule on Gay Marriage
By The Associated Press
December 21, 2006
The
California Supreme Court unanimously agreed Wednesday to decide whether the
state's ban on same-sex marriage violates a constitutional ban on
discrimination.
The justices' move sets aside a lower court's decision
in October that upheld state laws banning gays and lesbians from marrying one
another. The outcome is not likely until late next year.
Massachusetts
is the only state that authorizes same-sex marriage.
The justices are
reviewing an October decision by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of
Appeal, which ruled 2-1 that California
marriage laws do not discriminate because gays and lesbians get most all the
rights of marriage the state confers to straight married couples.
San
Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom put the marriage debate in the national spotlight
by allowing same-sex couples to get married at City Hall in 2004.
|
DiversityInc Bookstore |
|
|
Making Gay History -- The Half Century Fight for Lesbian and Gay Equal Rights
From the Boy Scouts and the U.S. military to marriage and adoption, the gay
rights movement has exploded on the national stage. Eric Marcus takes us
back in time to the earliest days of that struggle. Using the heart-felt stories of more than 60 people, he carries us through the
compelling five-decade battle that has changed the fabric of American society.
For More
Information |
|
California's
justices halted that wedding spree and voided the 4,037 marriage licenses while
sidestepping the core constitutional question. They ruled the mayor did not have
authority to make marriage law.
The justices, however, invited a
challenge to whether banning same-sex marriage was discrimination—a challenge
that reached the court Wednesday after it meandered through the trial and
appellate courts.
Whether prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying
violates the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians is the biggest question
surrounding marriage the California Supreme Court has faced since 1948. That
year, seven different justices became the first court in the nation to declare
laws banning mixed-race marriages unconstitutional discrimination.
The
same-sex case was brought by about 20 same-sex couples and the city of
San
Francisco.
Had the court not taken the case, the lower court's decision would have stood.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said the city is "extremely
gratified" the justices are reviewing the case.
"It's perhaps the major
civil-rights issue of our time," he said.
Randy Thomasson, spokesperson
for Voteyesmarriage.com, a group opposing same-sex marriage, said he was
disappointed with the court's move.
"If the law ain't broke, don't fix
it," he said. "This is bad news for marriage and the voters of
California
who already passed a state law reaffirming that marriage is a natural and
beautiful institution between a man and a woman."
The court's recent
record on gay and lesbian rights is mixed. In several landmark cases, the
justices have concluded that gays and lesbians have the same rights as married
couples to sue for wrongful death, to adopt children and to seek child support
from former partners.
Last year, the court unanimously ruled, under a
sweeping domestic-partner law that took effect Jan.
1, 2005,
businesses must offer spousal discounts to same-sex domestic partners if it
offers those benefits to married couples.
"The Legislature has made it
abundantly clear that an important goal of the Domestic Partner Act is to create
substantial legal equality between domestic partners and spouses," wrote Justice
Carlos Moreno, the court's only Democrat, appointed in 2001 by Gov. Gray Davis.
But in 1998, before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger-appointee Carol Corrigan
and Moreno
took the bench, the seven-member court unanimously sided with the Mount Diablo
Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which barred an openly gay man from being
an assistant scoutmaster because he is gay. The justices held that
California
civil-rights laws did not apply to the Scouts, and the Scouts had a First
Amendment right to associate with whomever it chose.
The justices,
however, were careful not to condone the Boy Scouts. "The resolution of this
matter," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote, "does not turn on our personal views
of the wisdom or morality of the actions or policies that are challenged in this
case."
None of those cases, however, has focused squarely on whether
gays and lesbians have a right to marry as barred by 1977 legislation and a 2000
voter-approved measure. In Proposition 22, 61 percent of voters declared
marriage as a union between a man and woman.
The closest the court came
to deciding the issue was in its 2004 ruling that Newsom overstepped his
authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples. In a 5-2 vote, the
court also nullified the marriages.
Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a
1994 Republican appointed by Wilson, and Justice Joyce Kennard, a Republican
appointed by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1989, wrote separately that the court
should not nullify the marriages. A decision on that, they said, should await a
final ruling on the marriages' constitutionality. (AP)
|
DiversityInc Bookstore |
|
By George Chauncey |
Why Marriage?
The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality
Why has marriage emerged as the most explosive issue in the gay struggle for equality?
The author shows the shifting attitudes toward gays, from the growth in acceptance to the many campaigns against gay rights that led to today's demand for a constitutional amendment. What's at stake for both sides is illuminated.
For More
Information
|
More from Today's Diversity News
<< PREVIOUS ITEM | NEXT ITEM >>
Send Your Comments About This Article Now
© DiversityInc 2008 ® All rights reserved. No article on this site can be reproduced by any means, print, electronic or any other, without prior written permission of the publisher.
|
|
