Divorce Attorneys
S.F. can’t challenge ‘mental disorder’ argument
|
|
The judge who will decide the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage has refused to let San Francisco submit expert studies to counter their opponents’ authorities, who contend that children need opposite- sex parents and that homosexuals can be cured. The city fears that the presence of those declarations, without opposing evidence, might be used by an appellate court to justify the state’s definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, a city lawyer said Monday. “We don’t want that hateful stuff to go into the record without being responded to,'’ said Deputy City Attorney Kathleen Morris, citing a declaration by a psychiatrist who described homosexuality as a mental disorder. Morris said the city still hopes to get its own declarations into the record reviewed by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer and the courts that review his ruling. Last week, Kramer refused to remove the declarations by opponents of same- sex marriage from the case file or to let the city present contrary authorities. He said he intends to base his ruling on legal arguments, not factual disputes – a signal that the judge may not think the statements already submitted contain anything that needs to be refuted. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Kramer or an appellate court will disregard the declarations. A lawyer for opponents of same-sex marriage said the purpose of the sworn statements was not to establish facts about marriage or families but to show Kramer that there were possible rational grounds for the marriage law. If the judge agrees with the legal test urged by defenders of the state law, “the city would have to show that all possible bases for the marriage laws were irrational,'’ said Byron Babione, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund. The ADF represents the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of two organizations joining the state in defense of the law. Kramer held hearings Wednesday and Thursday on lawsuits by San Francisco and groups of same-sex couples in the Bay Area and Los Angeles seeking to overturn the marriage law, and on suits by conservative groups seeking to uphold it. The judge has asked for written arguments on minor issues by Jan. 14 and is due to rule within 90 days of that date. Attorney General Bill Lockyer is defending the law by arguing that the constitutional right to marry covers only the generally understood definition of marriage, and that California protects the rights of same-sex couples in a law that will become effective Saturday granting domestic partners most of the rights of spouses. The Prop. 22 organization and another group, the Campaign for California Families, argue that the law is justified because husbands and wives make better parents than same-sex couples. Among the declarations they submitted to Kramer were statements from: – Jeffrey Satinover, a Princeton University lecturer and psychiatrist who specializes in “reparative therapy'’ for gays, saying the American Psychiatric Association was misled into removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973. |
Related Articles from Attorney for Divorce
Spain’s Gay "Marriage” Law to Face Constitutional Challenge
The new Spanish legislation calling homosexual partnerings 'marriage' is to be subject to a legal challenge by a judge who refused to participate in such a 'wedding.' Judge Laura Alabau of the city of Denia in southwestern Spain refused to "marry" a lesbian couple and has filed a legal challenge against the reform of Spain's Civil Code allowing same-sex couples to contract "marriage." Judge Alabau is basing her argument on article 32 of the country's Constitution, which says, "Men and women have the right to contract marriage with full juridical equality." The constitution also allows judges to file constitutional challenges. The
Judge Reviews Civil Marriage Law
Levi pointed out that many same-sex couples adopt children or conceive through alternate means, that procreation and coition are not crucial to marriage and that traditional marriages come with both responsibilities and benefits, which the same-sex couples would continue to uphold. She also argued marriages tend to improve the financial situations of two people. When confronting the defense's argument that a decision in favor of the gay and lesbian community could be controversial or unpopular both politically and with the general public, Levi said she hopes the court decisions could change those ideas. The Department of Health argued although the issue is
Utah cases challenge whether anti-polygamy laws are constitutional
Polygamy is the practice (usually religious) of having multiple spouses (usually wives). There are two possible lines of constitutional attack on anti-polygamy statutes. One derives from the First Amendment's religion clauses. The other derives from Due Process "right to privacy" concepts -- and in particular, from the Supreme Court's recent holding in Lawrence v. Texas that adults have a privacy right that extends to private, consensual sex acts. In the end, neither of these lines of attack will -- or should -- be successful. Still, it is worth taking a close look at each to examine the extent to which the
Supreme Court turns aside challenge to gay marriage law
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to the only state that allows gay marriages, declining to hear an appeal aimed at overturning the Massachusetts law that prompted a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex unions.
Suit to Challenge 1913 Mass. Marriage Law.
Eight same-sex couples and at least 13 municipalities said Thursday they will mount a legal challenge to the 1913 law used to block out-of-state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts. The groups said they would file two lawsuits Friday claiming the state law is unconstitutional and that it's discriminatory to enforce it against same-sex couples. After the state's Supreme...