The California Supreme Court grilled lawyers from both sides of the same-sex “marriage” case Tuesday in an over 3-hour hearing that centered around whether the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman should be altered.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Paul Sakuma, pool)California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George gestures in San Francisco, Tuesday, March 4, 2008. Gay marriage supporters and opponents are finished presenting arguments on whether California should join Massachusetts in legalizing same-sex 'marriages.'
The case was a consolidation of six lawsuits that arose after the high court voided over 4,000 same-sex "marriage" certificates illegally allowed by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom in a wedding spree at City Hall.
Three suits from disgruntled same-sex couples and one suit from the city of San Francisco are challenging the state's definition of marriage as defined between two people of the opposite sex while two other suits from traditional values groups are looking to preserve the centuries-old social institution.
At the heart of case is whether a legitimate reason stands why the state's definition of marriage, which was affirmed in 2000 by voters through ballot initiative Proposition 22, should be changed.
The hearing ranged over issues that included the proper role and reach of the courts in a democratic society and whether courts should place themselves ahead of voters or the legislature in defining marriage.
Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the state marriage law in their arguments before the justices.
Therese Stewart, counsel for the City and County of San Francisco, argued that the ban on marriage between same-sex individuals amounted to discrimination against gender or sexual orientation. She invoked the case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down interracial marriage. Justices in that case had recognized an individual's "right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice."
Several justices poked at Stewart's discrimination argument. They cited Proposition 22 and pointed out that California's domestic partnership laws already grant registered same-sex couples virtually identical benefits as married couples .
"Doesn't this really boil down to the use of the M word, marriage?" asked Justice Carlos Moreno.
Some judges also pondered how the state could bar polygamy or underage or immediate family member marriages, but not same-sex “marriages.”
During the questioning time for plaintiffs, the case of Perez v. Lippold, in which California struck down the ban on interracial marriage, also came into play.
Justice George asserted that it seemed like a high hurdle to equate sexual orientation with race or gender.
Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger, representing the state of California Krueger, dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints on inequality.
They "talk about domestic partnership as if it's schoolhouse segregation," Krueger told the judges. "Yes, same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry under our laws, but that is not the same type of exclusion."
Glenn Lavy, an attorney representing the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that the law doesn't stop gays and lesbians from marrying – just from marrying someone of the same sex.
He explained that Proposition 22 codified the public policy in California that limited marriage to a man and a woman.
The initiative process was the "ultimate expression of democracy," said Lavy.
In response to a question on the court's role, Lavy said the court should review the constitutionality of the state marriage laws but not rewrite them. He added that the case of Perez did not redefine marriage.
Matthew Staver of Liberty Counsel, representing Campaign for California Families, said the legalization of same-sex "marriage" would undermine traditional marriage.
He also noted that the optimal environment for child rearing is in the home of their biological mother and father.
The case reached the high court after the California appellate court in 2006 reversed a 2005 ruling that declared the state marriage law unconstitutional.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed two bills allowing same-sex "marriages," saying voters or the courts should decide the issue.
Massachusetts remains the only state in the nation to recognize a union between same-sex people as marriage.
More than half of U.S. states have passed amendments barring same-sex "marriage." President George W. Bush has proposed a ban on same-sex "marriage" to be written into the U.S. Constitution.
Opponents of gay "marriage" argue that a constitutional ban on such a union is a necessary step for the people to take in order to prevent courts from trumping the will of the people.
New Jersey and Vermont have passed civil union laws similar to those in California.
Justices have 90 days to review arguments and issue a ruling.
RSS
amen blue.
and don't forget incest marriages too. and why restrict it to just people? how about pets? yeah!
Just because the bible claims that a man and woman should be together does not mean that those beliefs should be put into law. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, that is fine. But two adults should have the right to obtain all the legal rights that everyone else has.
hahaha,
That's too funny. "Jesus did the exact same thing." Yes, He did. He did it so that He could share His love with them. A love that changes people. A love that changes people's personalities. He certainly did not "hang with them" because He wanted them to know their sin was okay.
Hey, feet. Listen to this bit of scripture from Jesus' own mouth.
Matthew 9:11-13: "And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Wow. So that's why He hung out with the sinners. To bring them to repentance. What you are, feet, is another human trying to corrupt the Word of God to justify yours, and everyone elses, sin.
It ain't gonna happen.
ifeelfine
>>>GMG - what does being gay have to do with any of that?<<<
Well, let me see.....You ardently stand up for homosexuality, verbally applaud others that do also, and scorn christians who say that it is antibiblical. So your previous statement of >>>They're telling me to repent of my gayness and I've never even said I was gay.<<< was what, a rhetorical whine?
>>>As for the company I keep - I guess I'm in good company; Jesus did the exact same thing (hung with the outcasts, admonished and was abrasive with the "religious" of his day, etc)<<<
So, are you comparing yourself to Jesus then? Wasn't it He that said marriage was a covenant between a man and a woman? Does that make Him "religious" because of his definitive stand? How does homosexuality square with that?
You are continually equating those who stand by the biblical doctrine that homosexuality is a sin with hate mongering. Tell me, you have said you believe fornication, adultry, and abortion is wrong. So, using your general logic, that would mean that you hate fornicators, adulterers, and people who take a pro-abortion stand. So then that must make you a hate mongerer, and abrasive.
Taking a stand on moral issues does not automatically mean you hate the person that disagrees or that practices those things, which you well know. So why do you so continually accuse those who have a stand different from yours of being hateful.
GMG - what does being gay have to do with any of that? It doesn't. As for the company I keep - I guess I'm in good company; Jesus did the exact same thing (hung with the outcasts, admonished and was abrasive with the "religious" of his day, etc)
Ifeelfine,
>>>They're telling me to repent of my gayness and I've never even said I was gay.<<<
Then address it. You know, you tell others that you are a Christian, have several strong opinions in total opposition to conservative chrisitian theology, you give verbal claps to vociferous agnostic/atheist bloggers, and in general treat christians on this site with a negative argumentative attitude. What do you expect?
They're telling me to repent of my gayness and I've never even said I was gay.
GMG - why? Everyone else here is free to point out everyone else's sin - why am I any different. Sin is sin, right? It strikes me as more than hypocritical. Did you flag others when they told me to repent of my gayness?
ifeelfine,
Just so you don't accuse Prophet, I flagged your post. The personal attacks on these sites are getting a little too much for me. So feel free to yell at me all you want.
ifeelfine,
Yes, I know your opinion on incest. You hate adult brothers and sisters who are in love with each other, and you think that they should not have the right to marry.
wow...what a heated debat going on in here. amazing we have to come up with a definition for marriage. silly me i thought it was always between 1 man and 1 woman. As christians is that not what God said. then thats what it is. Dont debat about it
By the way, just so you don't put words into my mouth again....yes, I speak out against adultery.
So, ifeelfine,
You still narrowminded and judgemental in that you refuse to accept adult incest marriages?
ifeelfine,
Thank you for telling me what I do, or don't do. Apparently, you know me better than myself.
What about adultery Prophet - do you speak out against that? I doubt it.
How 'bout if we allow brother and sister to marry as long as the brother has a vasectomy? That'd be a compromise. If they don't have kids, it really doesn't matter, and legally it's no one else's business.
Cal,
Yes, I can tell you one tangible negative result of homosexual relationships.
They will marry. Have a good life. Make lots of money. Although they cannot offer the propigation of mankind, they may make a contribution the this world.
And then after 70 short years on earth, they'll spend eternity in hell. That is why I speak out against homosexuality. Not, as you say, because I get a kick out of it. I don't want to see anyone spend eternity separated from God. I also speak out against drinking, fornication, adultery, lying, stealing, drug use, pride, jealousy, self-centeredness, basically anything that keeps us from a relationship with God.
Incest often does involve related adults who are truly in love with each other. Are you going to deny their right to marry?
Feets argument: An adult person having sex with their underage sibling or child is rape. Therefor incest (including that between consenting adults) should not be considered a true relationship.
Ramifications: A homosexual adult having sex with a non-related minor of the same sex is rape. Therefore homosexuality should not be considered a true relationship.
Ramifications: A heterosexual adult having sex with a non-related minor of the opposite sex is rape. Therefore heterosexuality should not be considered a true relationship.
Feet, get real. You've already proven your narrow-mindedness and judgemental views. Please don't embarass yourself any more. If incestuous marriages (the word "marriages" automatically refer to two consenting adults) is not considered appropriate, then neither is homosexual marriages. There's no argument that you could present that would change that. And by you accepting gay marriages, but not incest marriages, merely shows that you are just as narrow-minded as conservative Christians.
feet, by definition an incestuous relationship is a relationship between a brother/sister, child/parent. It is no more abusive than homosexuality. Sure, incest can involve abuse of a minor. But I hate to tell you this, but so can homosexuality. And if you want to argue that incest is an abusive relationship, we can argue that homosexuality is too, and therefore should not be considered a true relationship.
maintain the separation of church and state. all people have the right to marry whomever they choose. the only true objection that people have is based on their interpretation of the bible. really. no one is asking for the CHURCH to recognize or accept a marriage between a same sex couple. it is purely a legal definition in this instance, not a religious one. get over it, people. worry about yourself and how you can make the world a better place. stop trying to legislate the actions of others when it has no effect on you...
Either marriage is good for people or it isn't. You can't have it both ways. If marriage is good for straight people how can it be bad for gay people? How is kletting more people get married anti-marriage?
I suspect alot of opposition to same-sex marriage is really mean spirited people who want to hurt gays and lesbians because they get a kick out of it. Gay marriage is now legal in Massachusetts, Israel, South Africa and at least 4 other European countries. Can anyone tell me ONE tangible negative result from this. Just ONE. I am all ears.
Prophet - By definition, an incestuous relationship is one of abuse - stop trying to equate a loving homosexual relationship with one that at its root is abusive! There are other reasons too of course (the children with birth defects, etc).
Student,
I'll ask you the same thing I ask all gay marriage advocates. Are you willing to support and promote the incestuous marriages that are sure to follow?
TheArchitectureStudent,
Don't stereotype. If you actually took the time to read anything you'd notice that in one of my comments I said I DO NOT hate homosexuals nor do I discriminate against them in any way. Funny what you find when you actually read before making stereotypical posts ;)
still at it i see.... not legalising gay unions IS UNCONSTUTIONAL that is a fact. build a bridge and get over it. give gays unions instead of marriages if it worries you guys so much...gosh so much hatred from you people its disgusting.
PolishBear,
I can agree with you on the level that limiting homosexuals from something that many others have just because they are homosexual would be discrinimation, and therefor unconstituional. It's pretty self-evident.
I believe though that it's more of altering the definition of marriage that is the real point. Marriage is not a law, it's is more like a legal representation between a man and a woman. In Brown V Board they were arguing against law and ended up declaring it unconstitutional, therefor altering it. In this case we are arguing with something quite different. It's not exactly a law, but more like a defintion, therefor do we have the right to alter it just because it's unconstitutional? It's like taking the KKK to court because the definition discrinimates against practically everyone except for the white race.
I hope you catch my drift.
DEAR WILDERNESS:
You write, "Even if America fully accepts and legalizes homosexual marriage, God will still not recognize it."
Even so, GOD isn't responsible for income tax law, Social Security, or any of the 1,400 state and federal benefits that are automatically bestowed on married couples. This isn't a theocracy ... YET.
It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of "equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare that gays should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
To those people out there who still suggest that social justice must be reached through the legislative process, rather than through the courts, I would point to the history of racial injustice in this country. While I could choose any number of cases to make my point, I'll start with the most obvious - Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. As everyone knows, this is the ruling that essentially reversed the Plessy v Ferguson "separate but equal" doctrine. Without the decision of the court in Brown v Board, it is impossible to say when the schools of America would have begun to integrate, but I believe it is safe to say it would have been much later. At the time, the Brown v Board decision was just as unpopular with certain segments of the population as a decision today would be that grants gays equal marriage rights. Looking back, I think we can all agree that the unpopularity of the decision did not make it wrong.
The inter-racial argument is severely flawed. It was obvious that a ban on inter-racial marriage was clearly wrong because no where was marriage defined as "a white woman and a white man or a black woman and a black man". Marriage was simply defined as "man and woman". This case is completely and utterly different. Now we're talking about "man and man" and "women and women" which completely contradicts the definition.
Ifeelfine
It was voted on, by the people, who voted in a definition of man and woman.
"At the heart of case is whether a legitimate reason stands why the state's definition of marriage, which was affirmed in 2000 by voters through ballot initiative Proposition 22, should be changed."
Even if America fully accepts and legalizes homosexual marriage, God will still not recognize it, such will still be an abomination and an unseemly act. The word of God is clear in showing us only two ways for a man to avoid fornication: Abstinence or take a wife (woman).
“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.” (1 Co 7:1-3).
Let the Church unite in supporting the biblical values of God-ordained marriage between a man and a woman!
1man - You're right, it was voted on it passed but was vetoed by Arnold. Talk about an activist governor!
I really hope that gay marriage is defeated in the California Supreme Court - in other words, they just stay out of this issue. It's not worth it. Leave it alone, California justices. Don't play God or God will play you out.
Out of the ashes of Sodom and Gomorrah rises the cry, "Rebuild! Rebuild!"
man,
I will always be in issue. Until gay marriages are permitted nation wide.
I can't believe this is even an issue that is allowed to come up when it has already been voted on.......