State Supreme Court
rejects gay marriage case
By DAVID KRAVETS, AP
from SFGate.com from the Web, August 10, 2005
The California Supreme Court said
Wednesday it would not immediately decide whether a state ban on same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional, keeping gay marriage off-limits while leaving the
issue in legal limbo.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer and others wanted to bypass an appeals court
hearing to expedite a definitive ruling from the state's highest court.
They asked the justices to directly review the trial judge's ruling.
"We're disappointed," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer, who wanted
the court to overturn the ruling and uphold state law. "We thought that
the cases were ripe for a prompt and final resolution without having to go
through the court of appeal."
The case will remain before the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco,
where it is likely to take months for a decision on the controversial issue that
voters could face next year.
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, who is
pushing a constitutional amendment to permanently ban gay marriage, welcomed the
decision.
"It's very good that the high court declined to hear this case," said Thomasson,
who urged the court not to hear the case. "The high court should never
turn marriage upside down and inside out."
Without comment, the 5-0 decision, with one justice not participating and one
vacancy on the court, came a week after the court ruled that gays and lesbian
domestic partners are entitled to virtually the same benefits as married
couples.
The high court normally does not resolve cases until they have worked their way
through the lower courts. One of the last times it did, however, involved
gay marriage.
In August, 2004, the court ruled unanimously that San Francisco Mayor Gavin
Newsom overstepped his authority when he issued same-sex marriage licenses
during a monthlong wedding march that began in February that year.
The court took the case at the time because gay and lesbian newlyweds were
seeking spousal benefits not authorized by the state at the time. Many of
those benefits are now available under the domestic partners law that took
effect in January.
In its ruling at the time, the court also voided the 4,000 gay and lesbian
marriages sanctioned by the city, but did not resolve whether the California
Constitution allowed same-sex marriage.
That issue was taken up by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer,
who ruled in March in favor of a challenge brought by Newsom and gays and
lesbians who were denied marriage certificates.
Kramer wrote that "It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting
marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners."
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said he was disappointed the issue
would not be quickly resolved, but he said he was confident the courts would
ultimately uphold Kramer's ruling.
While the high court declined to immediately review Kramer's decision, it could
reach the justices in a year if voters don't approve a proposed constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage.
Thomasson and opponents of gay marriage are attempting to qualify the amendment
for next year's ballot. If passed, the same-sex litigation would be moot.
The consolidated cases are Proposition 22 legal Defense and Education Fund v.
San Francisco, S135603; San Francisco v. California, S135207 and Woo v.
California, S135208.
Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal
courts for more than a decade.
|
