On March 4th the California Supreme Court heard case S147999, in re Marriage Cases. This is a compilation of six appellate court cases that have been filed on the issue of whether California’s statutory ban on marriage between two persons of the same sex violates the “equal protection” clause of the state constitution. The recording of the arguments before the court and the questioning by the justices is available here in the audio archive. It is 214 minutes long and is tremendously fascinating to listen to.
One of the most interesting challenges the justices made to lawyers on both sides of the case was about the fact that California already gives domestic partners virtually the exact same rights and responsibilities as different-sex couples receive through marriage.
For the petitioners on behalf of overturning the ban on same-sex marriage, the justices asked why, when the state already gives the same functional rights and benefits to same-sex couples as different-sex ones, is it discrimination?
For the petitioners on behalf of sustaining the ban, the justices asked whether the very existence of a “separate but equal” status proves the discriminatory nature of the ban.
My general impression after listening to the audio is that those in favor of sustaining the ban faced much tougher scrutiny by the justices. This makes me hopeful that the justices will rule in favor of overturning the ban.
Right: Does its visibility in popular culture mean that the nation is ready for gay marriage?
Already, there is an effort underway to put an initiative on the California ballot that will alter the state constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. If this were to happen, it would be a tremendous setback. I’ll be asking for your support whether or not you are a Californian (or even an American) to encourage the voters of the state to make the choice that preserves the rights and liberties of all the state’s citizens and does not enshrine discrimination into the constitution.
The court has announced that it will release its ruling on Thursday, May 15th at 10:00 am PDT (5:00 pm GMT). Stay tuned as the announcement, regardless of the ruling is, will represent an important and significant milestone in the march towards equal rights for gay and lesbian people.
It is worth noting that it was this same court that in 1948 was the first supreme court in the nation to rule that anti-miscegenation laws (prohibiting marriage between people of different races) were unconstitutional in the case Perez v. Sharp. This landmark ruling preceded the nation’s Supreme Court ruling on the same issue by 19 years.
I hope that on Thursday the state supreme court once again serves as a bellwether of changes to come across the nation, so that one day Tawn and I will have the legal right to be married in the United States and enjoy federal benefits such as immigration rights.
christao408 
I honestly don’t see how anyone could possibly NOT see banning gay marrage as a huge mistake in terms of moving forward in equality.
Discrimination makes me angry.Why does the government need to define marriage?I wish to hell they would keep their noses out of the bedroom.sheesh!
It’s legal to be gay. It’s legal to live with your gay partner, and you can even wear rings if you damn well please. “Marriage” just means that gay couples would get the marriage benefits of heterosexual couples. I think that since being gay is totally against nature, a gay couple should suck it up and just be happy without the benefits. Is that such a big deal? I’m not married to my girlfriend, and we’re living together with kids, and doing just fine.
Gaud bless Cali. But she needs lots o’ luck in this one. Those folks pushing for the initiative banning same sex marriages are mostly a sick bunch of flock foundling minister types from the Midwest who have relocated to Cali with collection plate overspill. Those good ol’ boys have a butt load of sins to atone for by inflicting laws on others. They are desperate. If they don’t manage to police everyone else then God just might notice them for their own sins.
@vwagenjetta – Being gay is common among all primates and even many non primate species. It is completely natural.
@vwagenjetta – All legal issues aside, why shouldn’t any couple have their union blessed and accepted. It isn’t just about benefits. Marriage is, with gays just as it is with heterosexuals, an expression of love. That any law should forbid any form of expressing love and fidelity is barbaric!
If California wants to have marriage legally redefined, why isn’t it being done in the form of legislation through the legislature?
@ProvokingThought – i agree that in the long run, this is a job for the legislative branch. but historically, the legislature hasn’t done a good job of protecting the rights of minority groups until later in the lifecycle of civil rights expansion.
@john – I certainly appreciate your reasoned response. My questions genesis was “the state supreme court once again serves as a bellwether of changes” . I guess I was looking for “a fire” that needs put out to justify an emergency intervention. A natural or civil right that was being violated to the point it “can’t wait” and the law has to be struck down or sent back to the legislature to be defined on be clarified to put that fire out. Normally, to overcome case law there must be a compelling reason unless you have an activist court who believes in bench legislative powers.While legislative processes may be slow and deliberate it gives all sides a chance to debate, discuss and study the implications and fiscal impact said CHANGES would have. When the law becomes what the court says the law is,we are in the danger zone…
@ProvokingThought – The legislature has done this, but Governator Arnold vetoed it saying he wants the courts to decide. That’s precisely what they will do Thursday. I think it is rather odd that a Republican governor wants the courts to decide, but that’s what he said.
@christao408 – That is odd, and thanks!
Please post on the results I am sure I’ll forget to look it up on the news when I am in the lab…but I do check your blog XD
In issues of education, California ALSO finds itself as the nation’s leader in new, better, and innovative ideas. When I was getting my Masters, all we heard about was what they were doing in California to solve a particular educational issue and how California was the first to initiate and adopt blah, blah, blah.
I hope it happens…
@vwagenjetta – Homosexuality is actually just as natural and common as heterosexuality. It just sounds like you’re espousing archaic Christian beliefs based on poor interpretations of Leviticus. Homosexual people are still human beings and by that, they deserve to be protected as well. They deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.@christao408 – I always cringe when someone asks “Are we ready for (insert something here)?” on things like female/black presidents, legal homosexual marriage, or similar issues. The question alone insinuates at a very basic level that the regarded issue is one we really should be worried about or unsure about. In the case of presidency, it insinuates that a female or black president will be completely different from a white male president, which in my opinion is bigoted. The same for homosexual marriage. It insinuates that homosexuals are different than heterosexuals in the terms of love and marriage and we as a country might not be able to accept that. It’s a bigoted idea and a question with some slightly bigoted undertones. Not to say you are bigoted, I just loathe that question in these instances.
the divorce rates is rapidly climbing up while someones busy fighting for the gay marriage lol
Oh I am so torn on this issue. On one hand, I would love that gay marriage was allowed everywhere but on the otherhand if it’s not just for benefits and an expression of love as someone said then I don’t need someone else to validate my love for my bf. That’s just me. I understand why others want a wedding. I guess I’m just lucky I have the option in Canada.
@vwagenjetta – Yes, it is such a big deal. “Natural” defines what exists in nature and I, along with millions of other gay and lesbian people, do exist in nature. Just in the same way that (I assume) you want to be given the same rights and responsibilities as your fellow human beings based on “natural” characteristics like your sex, your cultural heritage, your physical ability, etc., I want to have those same rights.
@brooklyn2028 – Interesting perspective. So all those heterosexual people who get married are doing it just to receive validation from their wedding guests? I think it is something much more substantial than that. In getting married, people are getting the support from society at large, support that can help make being married and staying married easier.
@christao408 – And that is why I wrote the part about “That’s just me”. I mean I have never understood the desire to get married and I don’t really suggest that I do. Maybe one day I will understand it. I’ll have to think about the support that you wrote about before commenting further. Again it’s probably just my personal upbringing of being super independant that doesn’t understand the need for that support cause I get that support already without marriage.
America is just so far behind so many countries in recognising this basic human right!
@brooklyn2028 – No, you’re right and you make a good point. Re-reading what I wrote, let me apologize in case I came across as blunt. That wasn’t my intention. We’re on the same page here and I agree that for some people, the need or desire to get married may not be there while it is great that it is an available option for those who want it. Cheers.
This just in from KGO News. The California Supreme Court has ruled that the ban on Gay marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Yep, they overturned the ban. One big step in the right direction.http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage
@BADBOYDOOMDADDY –
Would you be interested in knowing that they are overturning majority voter issue? Wow it is interesting to know that America’s most populated state is all minster-types from the Midwest. You knowledge is overwhelming.
@BFree1776 – Courts regularly overturn laws that were approved by majority vote because the will of the majority does not always respect the constitutionally-enshrined rights of the minority. That’s why we require that laws made either through the legislative or initiative proces must be constitutional. The law in California allows the general public to directly propose ammendments to the state’s constitution through an initiative process and, as I’ve written, it is expected that the opponents of gay marriage will likely take advantage of that process. More details about the initiative process here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition.
I’ve never really seen what the big deal about same sex marriage is. After all, there are possibly hundreds of thousands of people who hate anchovies but you don’t find them protesting at their local pizza shop to ban others from ordering them. Perhaps a silly example but at the end of the day the whole thing is based on personal feeling and for those that start to quote biblical damnation of gay relationships, I’d love to find out just what authority proves which God governs the couple they are so quick to damn.
@BFree1776 – Sadly, I think I am related to most of them. The Oakee in Cali thing is nothing new to natives, born and bred.
@lcfu – GOOD POINT! Could that mean there is something wrong with heterosexual marriage???? Now that same sex marriage is legal in Cali, hopefully they will do a study I am sure will find same sex marriages at least as successful as hetero.
@brooklyn2028 – That is the point. We should all have the option. I have multiple female partners. Sometimes we wed, sometimes not. I have given one of my wives away at the alter. Weddings are a very rich way of expressing love and shouldn’t be denied anyone mature enough to understand it (say, 60+).
@christao408 – Hey no worries. That’s what’s good about Xanga, it’s a forum for batting around issues and ideas. Also I try not to take things too seriously as it’s hard to read tone in comments. š
@Tigster – The anchovy ordering is a great analogy – thanks for making my morning!