| RESIDENTIAL COMMERICAL Licensed Across Florida CGC060449 dructorbuilds.com 305-401-8914 |
| GAY & LESBIAN ALLIANCE AGAINST DEFAMATION WWW.GLAAD.ORG |
| Gay American Heroes Foundation Honoring LGBT persons who died because of their sexual orientation and gender identity www.gayamericanheroes.com |
| Endulge Yourself... Chocolate Themed Baskets & Gifts www.dulcestore.com |
| Web resource for LGBTQ youth www.matthewsplace.com |
| An online forum on sexual health education for gay and bisexual men www.lifelube.org |
| www.familiasporladiversidad.org |
| LIGA Contra el SIDA - SoFla. League Against AIDS www.leagueagainstaids.org |
www.ambiente.us MARCH / MARZO 2008
Warring sides on same-sex marriages look to March 4 court date
by Bob Egelko
The California Supreme Court scheduled a March 4 hearing Wednesday for the long-awaited clash between
gay-rights advocates, the state and religious conservatives over the constitutionality of banning same-sex
marriage.
The case, to be heard at the court's chambers in San Francisco, is a consolidation of four lawsuits by
same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, challenging the marriage restriction, and two countersuits by
private organizations defending the law.
The court, which normally allots one hour for a hearing, scheduled a three-hour session, its longest in recent
years. A ruling is due within 90 days.
Since agreeing to review the case in December 2006, the seven justices have been plowing through papers
filed by multiple parties as well as 50 briefs representing the views of hundreds of outside organizations.
Among those supporting marriage rights for gays and lesbians are the governments of 20 California cities
and counties, the NAACP and other civil rights groups, associations of psychologists and anthropologists,
Levi Strauss and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
The Knights of Columbus, organizations advocating alternatives to homosexuality, and the Mormon Church
and the California Catholic Conference are among the state's supporters, while the Unitarians and other
liberal denominations line up on the other side. Competing groups of constitutional law professors filed
conflicting briefs.
The range of support "shows the depth and breadth of a belief in the importance of marriage equality," said
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office will take part in the arguments.
Attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, who will argue to uphold the state law on behalf of the Campaign
for California Families, said allowing marriage for same-sex couples "will destroy the unique institution that
provides a stable cultural environment for children and their families."
Similar suits have been filed in other states, but only Massachusetts' high court has ruled that the state's
constitution forbids marriage discrimination against same-sex couples. Congress has forbidden federal
recognition of same-sex marriage.
The California law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman was passed by the Legislature in
1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in a 2000 ballot measure. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed
bills to legalize same-sex marriage.
The law was first challenged in February 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city
clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nearly 4,000 marriages were performed in the next
month before the state Supreme Court called a halt.
The court nullified the weddings in August 2004 and ruled that Newsom had no authority to disregard the
marriage law, but it did not decide whether the law was constitutional.
The case returned to San Francisco Superior Court, where Judge Richard Kramer ruled in 2005 that the
California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry the partner of one's choice, and that the law also
discriminated on the basis of sex.
A state appeals court overruled Kramer in October 2006, saying the law's exclusion of gays and lesbians from
marriage could be justified by tradition and by the fact that domestic partners in California have nearly all the
rights of married couples. The state's high court then agreed to take up the case.
The justices will hear a variety of defenses of the marriage law. Attorney General Jerry Brown's office argues
that the domestic-partner laws satisfy California's constitutional requirement of equal treatment for gays and
lesbians. Schwarzenegger's office will present its view that discrimination based on sexual orientation should
be judged less strictly than bias based on race or sex. Two advocacy groups will ask the court to uphold the
law on the grounds that opposite-sex couples make better parents.
The court will begin the hearing at 9 a.m. at 350 McAllister St. The session will also be televised live on the
California Channel.
Regardless of the ruling, the issue could go back before the voters. Some of the groups that sponsored the
2000 ballot measure reinforcing the prohibition on same-sex marriages are circulating initiatives that would
write the ban into the state Constitution. The initiatives would also overturn laws granting benefits to
same-sex domestic partners.
The Supreme Court case is titled In re Marriage Cases, S147999.
Copyright © San Francisco Chronicle & AMBIENTE MAGAZINE. Do not reproduce without citing this source.
Warring sides on same-sex marriages look to March 4 court date
by Bob Egelko
The California Supreme Court scheduled a March 4 hearing Wednesday for the long-awaited clash between
gay-rights advocates, the state and religious conservatives over the constitutionality of banning same-sex
marriage.
The case, to be heard at the court's chambers in San Francisco, is a consolidation of four lawsuits by
same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco, challenging the marriage restriction, and two countersuits by
private organizations defending the law.
The court, which normally allots one hour for a hearing, scheduled a three-hour session, its longest in recent
years. A ruling is due within 90 days.
Since agreeing to review the case in December 2006, the seven justices have been plowing through papers
filed by multiple parties as well as 50 briefs representing the views of hundreds of outside organizations.
Among those supporting marriage rights for gays and lesbians are the governments of 20 California cities
and counties, the NAACP and other civil rights groups, associations of psychologists and anthropologists,
Levi Strauss and the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce.
The Knights of Columbus, organizations advocating alternatives to homosexuality, and the Mormon Church
and the California Catholic Conference are among the state's supporters, while the Unitarians and other
liberal denominations line up on the other side. Competing groups of constitutional law professors filed
conflicting briefs.
The range of support "shows the depth and breadth of a belief in the importance of marriage equality," said
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, whose office will take part in the arguments.
Attorney Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel, who will argue to uphold the state law on behalf of the Campaign
for California Families, said allowing marriage for same-sex couples "will destroy the unique institution that
provides a stable cultural environment for children and their families."
Similar suits have been filed in other states, but only Massachusetts' high court has ruled that the state's
constitution forbids marriage discrimination against same-sex couples. Congress has forbidden federal
recognition of same-sex marriage.
The California law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman was passed by the Legislature in
1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in a 2000 ballot measure. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed
bills to legalize same-sex marriage.
The law was first challenged in February 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the city
clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Nearly 4,000 marriages were performed in the next
month before the state Supreme Court called a halt.
The court nullified the weddings in August 2004 and ruled that Newsom had no authority to disregard the
marriage law, but it did not decide whether the law was constitutional.
The case returned to San Francisco Superior Court, where Judge Richard Kramer ruled in 2005 that the
California Constitution guaranteed the right to marry the partner of one's choice, and that the law also
discriminated on the basis of sex.
A state appeals court overruled Kramer in October 2006, saying the law's exclusion of gays and lesbians from
marriage could be justified by tradition and by the fact that domestic partners in California have nearly all the
rights of married couples. The state's high court then agreed to take up the case.
The justices will hear a variety of defenses of the marriage law. Attorney General Jerry Brown's office argues
that the domestic-partner laws satisfy California's constitutional requirement of equal treatment for gays and
lesbians. Schwarzenegger's office will present its view that discrimination based on sexual orientation should
be judged less strictly than bias based on race or sex. Two advocacy groups will ask the court to uphold the
law on the grounds that opposite-sex couples make better parents.
The court will begin the hearing at 9 a.m. at 350 McAllister St. The session will also be televised live on the
California Channel.
Regardless of the ruling, the issue could go back before the voters. Some of the groups that sponsored the
2000 ballot measure reinforcing the prohibition on same-sex marriages are circulating initiatives that would
write the ban into the state Constitution. The initiatives would also overturn laws granting benefits to
same-sex domestic partners.
The Supreme Court case is titled In re Marriage Cases, S147999.
Copyright © San Francisco Chronicle & AMBIENTE MAGAZINE. Do not reproduce without citing this source.