The
California Supreme Court unanimously agreed Wednesday to decide whether the
state's ban on same-sex marriage violates a constitutional ban on
discrimination. 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.
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.
The justices are
reviewing an October decision by the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of
Appeal, which ruled 2-1 that
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.
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 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
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
"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
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 | |
|
|
Why Marriage? |
More from Today's Diversity News
<< PREVIOUS ITEM | NEXT ITEM >>