Divorce Attorneys
High court says no to same-sex marriage review
|
|
The state Supreme Court denied immediate review Wednesday of a challenge to California’s ban on same-sex marriage, making it more likely that voters will have their say on the issue before it reaches the high court. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is defending the marriage law, and the city of San Francisco and same-sex couples, who are challenging it, all asked the court last month to bypass an appellate court and take up the case directly. The court occasionally takes such a step on important issues that need to be resolved promptly. But the justices denied the requests Wednesday without comment or any recorded dissent. The case – actually a group of five cases raising the same issue – will now go to the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco. This is the second time the California Supreme Court has declined to address the constitutionality of the state’s marriage law, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The court ruled last August that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had exceeded his authority by issuing marriage licenses to almost 4,000 same-sex couples in February and March 2004, but the justices said the validity of the marriage law should be considered first in lower courts. Lockyer and two conservative organizations are appealing a March 14 decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, who ruled that the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violated the state Constitution in two ways: by discriminating on the basis of sex and by violating the fundamental right to marry the partner of one’s choice. Kramer put his ruling on hold while it is appealed. An appeals court decision is unlikely until at least early next year. The losing side would then appeal to the state Supreme Court, perhaps in time for a hearing by the fall of 2006. In the meantime, however, two groups of opponents of same-sex marriage are circulating competing initiatives that would amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and to repeal newly established benefits for domestic partners. The current marriage law, passed by the Legislature in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in 2000, is a statute that is not part of the Constitution. If one of the initiatives qualifies for next June’s ballot and passes, it would overturn Kramer’s ruling and short-circuit the court case. Wednesday’s high court decision “does put added significance on the initiative,'’ said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represents 12 same-sex couples in the case. “It creates a very scary situation for same-sex couples and their families. It’s very frightening to know that all legal protections for your family are being put to a vote.'’ Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer, said the court’s refusal to take up the case means that “same-sex couples, state authorities and local governments will be in a state of flux,'’ perhaps for years, while awaiting a final ruling. |
Related Articles from Attorney for Divorce
Early high court review of same-sex marriage ruling urged
The city of San Francisco and 12 gay and lesbian couples joined Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Thursday in asking the state Supreme Court to bypass an appeals court and immediately review a judge's ruling that declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Under usual procedures, the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco would get the first look at San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer's March 14 ruling, which found that the law discriminates on the basis of sex and violated the fundamental right to marry the partner of one's choice. The appeals court's decision could then be
Lockyer seeks review of gay marriage ruling
Attorney General Bill Lockyer, defending California's ban on same- sex marriage, asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to bypass an appellate court and review a judge's ruling that the marriage law violates the rights of gays and lesbians. Lockyer said he wanted to speed up the resolution of the case, which otherwise might not be decided until 2007. In the meantime, opponents of same- sex marriage could take the issue out of the courts' hands with a proposed 2006 ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit both marriage and marital benefits for same-sex couples. "Same-sex couples
Marriage case sent to top state court
The city of San Francisco appealed to the state Supreme Court on Monday to review the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage and rule that the law violates the rights of gays and lesbians. "This is the major civil rights issue of our time. And this court should have the final word,'' City Attorney Dennis Herrera's office said in papers filed with the court. Lawyers for same-sex couples, who separately challenged the marriage law, plan to file their petition today. The city has been involved in the dispute since February 2004, when Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized the city clerk
State lawyer, activist groups split on same-sex marriage
The state and its would-be allies in defense of California's ban on same-sex marriage have broken ranks on whether the state Supreme Court should review the issue after an appellate court upheld the heterosexuals-only marriage law. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, representing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials, urged the high court Monday to grant a hearing to challengers of the marriage law and provide "finality and certainty for the citizens of California'' on the issue. But lawyers for the Campaign for California Families, which opposes both same-sex marriage and domestic partner rights, asked the court to deny review and
State Supreme Court won’t review gay marriage case
The state Supreme Court denied immediate review today of a challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriage, making it more likely that voters will have their say on the issue before it reaches the high court. Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is defending the marriage law, and the city of San Francisco and same-sex couples who are challenging it all asked the court last month to bypass an appellate court and take up the case directly. The court occasionally takes such a step on important issues that need to be resolved promptly. But the justices denied the requests today