Divorce Attorneys
The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage
|
|
Attorney General Bill Lockyer took his defense of California’s ban on same-sex marriage to a state appeals court Wednesday, arguing that the state has struck an “appropriate constitutional balance'’ between traditional marriage and equal rights for gays and lesbians. “The common understanding of marriage is deeply rooted in our society, and it is legitimate for California to maintain this meaning while affording equivalent rights and benefits to same-sex couples,'’ Lockyer’s office said in written arguments to the Court of Appeal in San Francisco. The state is appealing a March 14 decision by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer overturning the law that defined marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Kramer said the law discriminated on the basis of sex and violated the fundamental right to marry the partner of one’s choice. He put his ruling on hold during the appeal process. A bill by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, to legalize same-sex marriage won legislative passage this month, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he will veto it because it conflicts with Proposition 22, a 2000 initiative that reaffirmed the definition of marriage. Meanwhile, conservative groups are circulating initiatives for next June’s ballot that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage and repeal new laws that gave same-sex domestic partners most of the rights of married couples under state law. As Lockyer pointed out, the voters may take the issue out of the courts’ hands before a final ruling, as the case is unlikely to reach the state Supreme Court until late next year. In the court case, the state’s brief by Senior Assistant Attorney General Louis Mauro argues that the marriage law treats men and women equally and does not discriminate overtly on the basis of sexual orientation. Mauro also disputed Kramer’s conclusion that gays and lesbians had a fundamental right to marry their chosen partners, saying fundamental rights were limited to those that were “deeply rooted in history, culture and tradition.'’ Lawyers for same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, which have sued to challenge the marriage law, disagreed with the state’s arguments. “Their argument would legitimize the doctrine of separate but equal in the state of California,'’ said City Attorney Dennis Herrera. Attorney Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said the California Supreme Court’s landmark 1948 ruling, striking down the state’s ban on interracial marriage, established that “you can’t define a fundamental right by excluding a particular group of people.'’ |
Related Articles from Attorney for Divorce
Same-Sex Marriage Battle Heats Up as Massachusetts Set to Allow Gay Weddings.
May 13--Within weeks if not days of the first same-sex weddings Monday in Massachusetts, the battle over gay marriage is expected to accelerate across the country as gay and lesbian couples file lawsuits seeking to topple barriers to such marriages in their states. Legal scholars predict that couples who get marriage licenses will soon bring suits seeking legal recognition of their marriages in other states or benefits under federal law that married heterosexuals are eligible for in Massachusetts. Ultimately, the challenges may target the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act, which reserves marriage to heterosexual couples, or some 40 state
Suit to Challenge 1913 Mass. Marriage Law.
A 1913 law that went virtually unnoticed for almost a century may take center stage in the battle over gay marriage in Massachusetts. The law prohibits clerks from issuing licenses to couples if the marriage would not be legal in their home state. After the state's Supreme Judicial Court ruled in November...
U. Wisconsin: COLUMN: Court weighs culture, law.
It might have been lost in all the commotion preceding the drunken revelry of Madison's Halloween weekend, but a case decided in New Jersey showed that courts can get an issue right. Without appealing to the leftist mantra of semantic equality, nor the right's naive insistence that same-sex couples don't exist and don't deserve rights, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided fairly and with restraint that marriage, or something of a different name, is a right guaranteed to all. The decision should prompt Wisconsinites, in the middle of our referendum battle on marriage and civil unions, to realize a truism...
Allowing gay marriage in NJ, elsewhere, may help opponents’ cause
After being rebuffed in the U.S. Senate, some opponents of gay marriage think losing a court case might help their case to ban same-sex unions across the country. High courts in New Jersey, New York and Washington state are deliberating cases in which gay and lesbian couples argue their state constitutions give them the right to marry. Similar lawsuits are working their way through the court systems in California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland. "If any of those courts mandate genderless marriage, you're going to have folks on the other side saying, 'This makes the marriage issue serious business,'" said Monte
Canadian court approves gay marriage law
Ottawa - Canada's Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that government plans to allow same-sex marriage were constitutional - in a landmark ruling in the long battle for equal rights for gays and lesbians. The government had asked the court to examine its bill before it enters parliament, a step expected to follow early next year. The court ruled however that religious officials could not be compelled to marry same sex couples, if they believed the practice infringed their religious beliefs. While the government was waiting for a judgment before changing federal law on same-sex marriage, courts in six Canadian provinces and one territory