California's Same-Sex Marriage Case Concludes
Superior Court judge Richard Kramer is requesting further written arguments by Jan. 14 and must issue a ruling within 90 days of that date.
SAN FRANCISCO – The attorney defending California’s one man and one woman marriage laws on behalf of one conservative group concluded two days of hearings on Thursday by a pointing out a basic difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples that makes marriage exclusive.
Rena Lindevaldsen, attorney of Liberty Counsel, who is representing Campaign for Children and Families, told Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer that California’s marriage laws do not discriminate against same-sex couples because they “can’t perform the basic functions of marriage.”
The “basic difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples,” she said was “the ability to procreate and, therefore, insure the existence and survival of our species.''
Sherri Sokeland Kaiser, attorney for the city of San Francisco, said other people who will not likely bear children are allowed to marry, referring to women over 50 and convicted criminals sentenced to life in prison.
The city and a dozen same-sex couples asked the judge to declare California’s marriage laws unconstitutional.
Alliance Defense Fund attorney Glen Lavy, arguing on behalf of Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the marriage laws do not discriminate because homosexuals are allowed to marry just like every other consenting adult.
He rejected the idea that there was “a suspect class of couples.”
A California law passed in 1977 defined marriage as between a man and a woman. In March 2000, over 61% of California voters reaffirmed the law through a ballot initiative.
Judge Kramer has requested further written arguments by Jan. 14 and must issue a ruling within 90 days of that date.
Kramer said he could rule one of three ways:
• The marriage ban is constitutional, handing a victory to the Prop. 22 fund, the family campaign and the state;
• The marriage ban is unconstitutional, handing a victory to the city and gay rights advocates, or·
• He needs to conduct more hearings.
Whatever his decision, there will likely be appeals. The case is expected to head to the California Supreme Court, which invalidated San Francisco’s 4,000 same-sex marriage licenses earlier this year.
