California gay couples await ruling

Sometime within the next three months same-sex couples in California will learn if they will be allowed to marry. For most the wait will be excruciating. For over three hours on Mar. 4 the state Supreme Court heard arguments on both sides of the issue with justices peppering attorneys on both sides of the issue with tough questions. The case dates back to 2004 when San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some 8,000 couples exchanged vows before the state Supreme Court ruled Newsom had acted illegally. The court nullified the marriages but said its ruling dealt only with Newsom's actions. The justices said at the time the question of whether barring same-sex couples from marrying violated the state's equal protection clause of its constitution was a separate matter. Legal challenges on the constitutional question were begun almost immediately. Three separate suits ultimately were wrapped together into a single case. In March 2005 a Superior Court judge in San Francisco ruled that the law denying same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling. In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians. Kramer stayed his ruling while the state appealed. In October, 2006, the California Court of Appeal in a split decision overturned Kramer's ruling. The Supreme Court wrapped together three cases filed by nearly two dozen same-sex couples and a fourth by the city of San Francisco. Large crowds began gathering in front of the courthouse at dawn. But noticeably absent were Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, the first pair to marry in San Francisco on Feb. 12, 2004. At the time, they had been together for 51 years. They are one of 23 couples suing the state, but poor health kept them at home today. "We have been in love for 31 years and are finally getting our day in court," said Myra Beals, who came from Mendocino, California to watch the arguments with her partner Ida Matson. "It was encouraging to hear explained what we know so well from our years together -- it is unfair and hurtful to be barred from the legal protections and universal societal recognition of marriage." "I think I speak for everybody when I say that this has been a long time coming and a day that has been eagerly anticipated," said San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, as he entered the court. The same-sex couples were represented by Lambda Legal, the ACLU and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. On the other side were Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger who represented the state of California and attorneys for two conservative social action groups opposed to same-sex marriage. NCLR attorney Shannon Minter argued that denying gay and lesbian couples to marry violates the state constitution. Opponents argued that same-sex couples have domestic partnership law that is tantamount to marriage. "We're very hopeful that California history will stay true today and we'll see the constitution vindicated for the thousands of families in California who depend on our equal place under law," said Lambda attorney Jennifer Pizer. The justices have 90 days to issue a ruling. In Sacramento openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) expressed cautious optimism. Leno twice introduced bills in the legislature that would have allowed same-sex marriage. Both bills passed only to be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "I am hopeful," said Leno,–that the California Supreme Court will reaffirm its position from 1948 when it historically ended its ban on interracial marriage, saying that, 'marriage is a fundamental right of free men... any legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.' "Those words are as true today as they were 60 years ago."