Major marriage ruling imminent

Forums Home | The FireWire | Breaking News

Posts 1-2 of 2 | Latest Post
May 14, 2008 09:00 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 24, 2007
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

A quick note to let you know that our staff has just been
informed that the California Supreme Court will announce
its decision in Liberty Counsel's marriage case tomorrow
(Thursday) at 1pm Eastern time.

At this point, I cannot even give you a guess as to how the
Court will rule. But either way, our legal team is bracing
for a flood of media attention because this is a landmark
case that will have ramifications from coast to coast.

As soon as the decision is announced, I will be emailing
you with my response. Please be watching for a special
message tomorrow afternoon.

Thank you for standing with Liberty Counsel, and for your
prayers on behalf of this nation.


Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

P.S. Again, please be watching for my special email report
to you as soon as the decision is announced tomorrow afternoon.
May 15, 2008 07:40 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
April 3, 2008

Whoa -- this will be a case worth following!

 

Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage due

Thursday, May 15, 2008

(05-14) 16:46 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- More than four years after San Francisco defied state marriage laws by allowing nearly 4,000 same-sex couples to wed at City Hall, the state Supreme Court is set to decide today whether gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry in California.

But the decision, due at 10 a.m., may not be the last word. Conservative religious organizations have submitted more than 1.1 million signatures for an initiative that would amend the state Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage. If at least 694,354 signatures are found to be valid, a tally that is due by mid-June, the measure would go on the November ballot and, if approved by voters, would override any court ruling in favor of same-sex marriage.

Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment.

The marriage case is the most prominent and politically explosive dispute to come before the court in decades. The justices have largely managed to stay out of the public spotlight since 1986, when voters removed Chief Justice Rose Bird and two liberal colleagues who had joined her in overturning nearly all death sentences to come before the court.

The current court, with a 6-1 majority of Republican appointees, has a centrist record on social issues and has ruled in favor of gay-rights advocates in a number of cases, including three decisions in 2005 requiring equal treatment for same-sex parents in disputes over child support and custody. The justices seemed sharply divided at their hearing in the marriage case March 4.

Win or lose, supporters of same-sex marriage have scheduled a "celebration of love and family" at the San Francisco LGBT Center, 1800 Market St., at 5 p.m. today, with similar observances planned in Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo and Palm Springs.

"Express your joy - or frustration - with dignity and resoluteness," the advocacy group Equality California advised participants in an e-mail message.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose order authorizing the City Hall weddings started the chain of events leading to today's ruling, said the case represents progress, regardless of the result.

"Even if we are not successful, we will have pushed the ball forward," said Newsom, who was testifying to a congressional committee Wednesday in Washington and scrapped a planned trip to Chicago to return to San Francisco today.

The case began in February 2004, when Newsom told the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying he doubted the constitutionality of the marriage law.

The state's high court halted the weddings a month later, then nullified the marriages in August 2004 and ruled that Newsom lacked the authority to override California law.

The court did not rule on the validity of the law, however, and instead referred the issue to lower courts. Constitutional challenges were immediately filed by 23 couples - including some whose marriages had just been annulled - and by the city of San Francisco.

A Superior Court judge in San Francisco declared the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in March 2005. Judge Richard Kramer said the law violated the right to marry the partner of one's choice - a right first established by California's high court in a 1948 ruling allowing interracial marriages - and also constituted sex discrimination.

But a state appeals court upheld the law in October 2006. In a 2-1 ruling, the court said California is entitled to preserve the historic definition of marriage while protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination by granting marital rights to domestic partners, most of whom are same-sex couples.

That is the argument advanced by state Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, which is defending the marriage law in court. Two conservative organizations, the Campaign for California Families and the Prop. 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, have entered the case and argued that broadening the marriage law to same-sex couples would weaken traditional matrimony.

Massachusetts is the only state whose high court has ruled that the state's Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry.

 

Check SFGate.com today for complete coverage of the state Supreme Court's ruling.




Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom. (Alexis de Tocqueville)

You must login to discuss this item.