Spring Break
Pivotal gay-marriage hearing Tuesday in state Supreme Court
Mar. 4, 2008
Crystal Carreon - McClatchy NewspapersIssue date: 2/28/08 Section: MCT News
SACRAMENTO, Calif. _ The California Supreme Court is set Tuesday to consider a pivotal civil rights question that has sparked controversy in courthouses and contentious public debate: Should gay couples be allowed to marry?
From its courthouse in San Francisco, the seven justices are scheduled to hear three hours of oral arguments about whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional _ an issue that has polarized politics and divided courts across the country for nearly a decade. But a decision by this high court, in the state with the largest number of homosexual couples, could reverberate well beyond California.
"This will be one of the _ if not the_ legal landmarks in the struggle for equal rights," said Geoffrey Kors, of Equality California, a gay and lesbian advocacy group involved in the marriage litigation. "It will have a ripple effect not only in this country, but the whole world."
To date, only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to legally marry. But supporters of gay marriage say they have hope that California's high court will channel its legacy of progressive rulings, including its landmark 1948 decision to legalize interracial marriage, in the belief that people have a fundamental right to marry whom they choose.
Social conservatives and other foes of gay marriage, however, are girding themselves for Tuesday's legal fight, which also will examine Proposition 22, the voter-approved initiative in 2000 that limited marriage to a man and woman.
New initiative drives are under way for a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that would override a court decision and usurp the kinds of public policy confusion that has "trashed the people's vote," according to the Web site for Sacramento-based VoteYesMarriage.com, one of the groups concerned over how the high court may rule.
"The justices can destroy or protect marriage. If the justices alter the definition of marriage, then the people will certainly override them at the ballot box," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, which helped draft the initiative and is a respondent in the state's marriage case.
From its courthouse in San Francisco, the seven justices are scheduled to hear three hours of oral arguments about whether the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional _ an issue that has polarized politics and divided courts across the country for nearly a decade. But a decision by this high court, in the state with the largest number of homosexual couples, could reverberate well beyond California.
"This will be one of the _ if not the_ legal landmarks in the struggle for equal rights," said Geoffrey Kors, of Equality California, a gay and lesbian advocacy group involved in the marriage litigation. "It will have a ripple effect not only in this country, but the whole world."
To date, only Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to legally marry. But supporters of gay marriage say they have hope that California's high court will channel its legacy of progressive rulings, including its landmark 1948 decision to legalize interracial marriage, in the belief that people have a fundamental right to marry whom they choose.
Social conservatives and other foes of gay marriage, however, are girding themselves for Tuesday's legal fight, which also will examine Proposition 22, the voter-approved initiative in 2000 that limited marriage to a man and woman.
New initiative drives are under way for a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that would override a court decision and usurp the kinds of public policy confusion that has "trashed the people's vote," according to the Web site for Sacramento-based VoteYesMarriage.com, one of the groups concerned over how the high court may rule.
"The justices can destroy or protect marriage. If the justices alter the definition of marriage, then the people will certainly override them at the ballot box," said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, which helped draft the initiative and is a respondent in the state's marriage case.
Be the first to comment on this story