Both sides in the gay "marriage" debate will be watching California's highest court Thursday to see if the nation's biggest state goes the way of Massachusetts and legalizes same-sex "marriage."
The California Supreme Court was scheduled to rule on a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.
Supporters and opponents of gay marriage predicted a number of possible outcomes from the California court's seven justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican governors.
Like the top court in Massachusetts, they could hold that prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying constitutes unlawful discrimination and order state lawmakers to remedy the situation.
Less likely but still feasible, they could bypass the Legislature and simply strike the one man-one woman definition from the marriage statutes, according to Kors. In that instance, the soonest couples could start walking down the aisle would be in 30 days, the time it typically takes for Supreme Court opinions to become final, he said.
A majority of the justices could also join the top courts in four other states that have upheld gay "marriage" bans.
Such a decision would leave any subsequent changes in the hands of voters or the Legislature, which has twice passed laws to make gay "marriage" legal. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed them both times, citing the ban approved by voters in 2000.
"If California issues a decision legalizing same-sex 'marriage,' it will reinvigorate the fight for same-sex 'marriage'" nationally, said Jordan Lorence, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund. "But if they affirm that marriage is for a man and a woman, then what has happened is that Massachusetts is leading a one-state parade."
Lorence and Kors agreed that there is another, more nuanced option. The court could strike down the 2000 ban, known as Proposition 22, but give the Legislature the leeway of devising a solution that falls short of allowing marriage for all.
That's what the New Jersey Supreme Court did in 2006. After that court ruled that gay couples should receive the same legal protections as husbands and wives, New Jersey legislators opted to allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, designed to give them spousal rights without marriage.
California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.
A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay "marriage" in the state constitution.
The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.
The cases before the California court were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments
All I have to say on this issue is read leviticus 18:22 This country has been asleep for way too long especially the Christians who cannot seem to get together and agree on these issues such as gay marriages,abortion and other moral issues. Just because we are of different religious groups we should retain the same beliefs on morality. Our divorce rate is way too high(America) due to low morals and committment. Chicago24 I am going to take it that you are gay or for sure are in support of gay marriges. If you do not live by the Bible then toss out your little interjections that quote the Bible because you are only taking sections that you want to try to prove your point. Either take the whole Bible or none of it. Like i said before read leviticus18:22. The people and the Governor of California that allow this abomination to sacred marriage to happen will have a lot to answer to. SICK thats all I have to say!!!
BTW - I do appreciate having a true discussion and exchange of ideas - even if we don't see eye to eye- much more than the more... animated exchanges I sometimes see. Thanks.
MuggleBorn-
lol on the first part. I suppose in the larger view, one would have to also assume that an ever growing population is a good thing... a position that I don't share.
And at the risk of opening another topic, there is research supporting the idea that an increase of one's gene's can be perpetuated by having a gay or lesbian sibling. NOT as an incestous partner, but as an additional helper and provider.
Furthermore, (and possibly another topic!) allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt can offer much by way of providing for children that no one else has bothered to care for.
free2b,
>> fit in more nicely with the 'be fruitful' scenario <<
YUCK! :^)
The actual point usually being made by that parallel is that the argument is used that marriage is not a sacrament that goes hand-in-hand with procreation. I think the best scenario to start with would be the least likely combination of two aberrational events ... 2 gay brothers (or 2 gay sisters) wanting to marry.
No one could argue that there would ever be a danger of upsetting the gene pool, there.
MuggleBorn,
The incest point is an interesting one. The reasoning for that, as I understand, is the increased probability of negative genetic traits being enhanced in the offspring of such a union. What I find most intriguing is that incest would obviously fit in more nicely with the 'be fruitful' scenario so many fundamentalists insist on interjecting into the equality argument. As would polygamy, though not polyandry.
if we are going to change the definition of 'marriage' as one man/one woman then marriage simply ceases to exist and anyone can cohabit in any number or gender as they please. They can stop prosecuting those polygamist now.
free2b,
I saw that when I read it. I guess I was just knit-picking on the details of his point, simply because I thought the point ignores the inevitability that once gay marriage is dominant throughout the 50 states, the next thing to happen will be the encroachment of government into the churches’ rights to allow marriage as THEY see fit … according to their belief in God’s Word.
So, yeah. I just didn’t like the point. Sorry, chicago24. Nicely stated, I just disagree with the whole notion … and my head is full of cold medicine.
BTW, free2b, the logic can be reversed to beg the question, why are there still laws against incest? This has been brought up before, and I think it holds a better analogy to the kind of “equal rights” that gays are asking for.
well now - if it's legal to marry anyone you want - since to define a marriage as strictly one man-one woman would be a religious viewpoint - shouldn't it also be legal to marry as MANY people as you want to? After all the prohibitions against plural marriage is also only a religious argument.
Shouldn't my next door neighbor be free to get married to her two roommates? I mean she already says "we're one big happy family" - who is the government to say that they aren't?
(sigh)
Please - Lord, Come quickly!
Freedom and liberty may reign in this country after all! god bless California!
It looks like California just ruled in support of gay marriages.
And before anyone gives that lame cliche of God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, please keep in mind that Adam and Eve must have been horrible parents --- one of their kids killed the other one. And if you take the Bible literally, then the remaining son must have reproduced with Eve. Hardly a model family. . . .
I don't know what is worse, a court that legislates and overrides the citizens' will, or that they lack a moral fiber to know right from wrong.
It is a sad day when sin is given a foothold on an entire state.
Just in California court rules in favor of gay marriage 4-3
http://onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=117314
well said Chicago.
Christians must unite in prayer to protect what God had originally planned for marriage to be. One man and one woman.