Gay marriage case delayed by "friend-of-court" briefs
Article History
There are updates to this article.

SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - One reason why the California Supreme Court is taking so long to decide whether gay marriage is legal is that the issue has attracted more "friend of the court" briefs than any other case in recent memory, Chief Justice Ronald George said Tuesday.

George said the court has received 45 such briefs from 145 different organizations lobbying the state's high court to decide the case in a variety of ways.

An array of civil rights groups and several cities have filed court documents in favor of gay marriage, while politically conservative and religious organizations filed papers supporting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's position opposing gay marriage. Attorney General Jerry Brown also has filed opposition papers.

"We have a lot of material before us," George said. "There is a vast amount of literature to read."

The Supreme Court took up the matter in December 2006. All the required written legal arguments were filed by Nov. 15, George said.

The chief justice said the court expects to hear the case in 2008. The issue is not on the court's January calendar.

The court is required to rule 90 days after oral arguments.

The issue dates back to Valentine's Day in 2004 when San Francisco began marrying same-sex couples. In March, the California Supreme Court ordered the city to stop the marriages while the courts considered six related lawsuits challenging whether the state's one-man, one-marriage laws are constitutional.

In October 2006, a divided appellate court upheld California's marriage laws, ruling that they did not discriminate against gays because they get the same rights by registering as domestic partners.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Name
Comments

characters left


Comments from Examiner Readers

6:24 PM MST on Wed., Jul. 16, 2008 re: "Calif. high court mulls marriage ban challenge"

Jayrod said:
It used to be illegal for two people of opposite races to get married, women used to have no right to vote, minorities used to be legally segregated, the right to own slaves used to be a constitutionally protected right. Times do and must change and religion must not be counted in this argument, only what is fair. That means equal rights...for everybody!

4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

11:24 AM MST on Wed., Jul. 16, 2008 re: "Calif. high court mulls marriage ban challenge"

Bay Area Taxpayer said:
Too much time and effort is being spend on this stupid topic. Only a man and woman can marry and receive the benefits of this union. Society is not ready for the deviation and perversion of nature of what's happening in SF and other liberal cities across America. Do what you want, it's a free country, just don't force the issue down the throats of others with differing views. Remember SF is a haven for gays, illegal immigrants and other dregs of society who live off the welfare system and suck dry all funds needed for the rest of society. You can fight till hell freezes over but will never prevail, never win ... count on it.

4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:15 PM MST on Mon., Jun. 30, 2008 re: "Gay marriage opponents want voters to decide ban"

Knot2brite said:
Doesn't it seem odd that California voters have to ask permission from the State Supreme Court to engage in democracy, while the opponents of this measure are calling it a revsion not an amenmendment? Revise, amend , prepend, change, add, alter, whwatever, how about a free and fair election, up or down, just like we learned in grade shool?

3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:44 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 20, 2008 re: "Gay rights advocates seek to stop marriage measure"

Examiner Reader said:
I keep hearing over and over again from the supporter of gay marriage that you should be able to marry whoever you want. OK, lets take that cocept literally for one moment. What if a pedophile wants to marry a child? Would you have a problem with that? The Supreme Court ruling and Fall ballot iniative is about alot more then gays and straights but whether we will allow marriage to be turned into a moral free fire zone where ANY relationship if considered equally valid. That is whats at issue here and why pedophile marriage is not a far fetched as you think.

5 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:08 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 18, 2008 re: "Hundreds of gay couples wed across California"

AMERICA CALLING said:
the decline and fall of the united states look at rome we are folling the same path but thank god we still have a miltary that may have to save us from ourselves

7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:58 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 18, 2008 re: "Hundreds of gay couples wed across California"

WildJose said:
America is on an unending slide downhill.

7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:39 PM MST on Tue., Jun. 17, 2008 re: "Hundreds of same-sex couples wed across California"

Examiner Reader said:
people should be able to live and love in peace. the nasty people need to find a sense of humor. I love SF!

9 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:39 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 17, 2008 re: "Dozens of gay couples get married in California"

Examiner Reader said:
I VOTE YES FOR GAY MARRIAGE . Love is a good thing . There's more to life than sex . That' all people who are against gay love think about is sex .

10 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:45 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 12, 2008 re: "Group asks Calif. court to ban gay marriage"

Examiner Reader said:
How does someone else's marriage (whatever its terms?)invalidate one's own?

11 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:38 PM MST on Thu., Jun. 12, 2008 re: "Group asks Calif. court to ban gay marriage"

Louie said:
good, Marco. you go ahead and divorce your girlfriend.. are you THAT stupid that the statement you just made is what REALLY makes marriage a corrupted, meaningless thing? seriously, it's the heterosexuals who have destroyed marriage, since so far, they have been the only ones allowed to get married..

10 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:33 PM MST on Wed., Jun. 11, 2008 re: "Gay-marriage ruling could boost California's ailing economy"

Marco said:
Man to man and woman to woman marriage...the very thought gives me the creeps. I think I will get divorced from my opposite-sex wife because marriage is now a corrupted, meaningless thing. I liked her better as my girlfriend anyway. First they highjacked the word "gay", then the rainbow, now, marriage. Yuck.

8 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:40 AM MST on Thu., Jun. 5, 2008 re: "Gay couples cheer California high court ruling"

Examiner Reader said:
There will always be people against equality. Remember when the Massachusetts State Supreme Court ruled to legalize gay marriage in 2003 Romney & his cronies tried everything to stop it but failed. Even after gay marriages were performed they tried to get an amendment on to the ballot until June 14th, 2007 when it was finally defeated in the State House. For those who are still uncomfortable with gay marriage check out our short produced to educate & defuse the controversy. It has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: www.OUTTAKEonline.com

10 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:24 AM MST on Wed., May. 28, 2008 re: "Poll: Majority of Californians back gay marriage"

Gretchen said:
It is primarily religious groups who oppose gay marriage - even when the couple gains little more than the right to use the M word. America was founded by people who wanted freedom of religion; freedom from a government dictating their religious beliefs. America was founded as a country with separation of church and state, yet it is now the church trying to force the state to impose laws based on religious beliefs. People are free to follow their religious beliefs, but they are not free to force others to also believe as they do. We don't have a ban on pork just because some religions forbid it. We don't forbid divorce just because some religions forbid it. Women are not forced to wear head coverings. Marriage is a legal construct as well as a religious one and should, as all other religious practices, be free to exist outside of religious boundries.

16 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:30 AM MST on Wed., May. 28, 2008 re: "Poll: Majority of Californians back gay marriage"

Jayrod said:
One day we will all look back on those who opposed gay marriage just like those who opposed segregation, a womens right to vote or interracial marriage. All of these draconian laws used to be in the Constitution. SLAVERY used to be constitutionially legal for crying out loud! This just proves that times do and must change. Besides, as one comedian said, "If gay people want to get married and be as miserable as married straight people, then who am I to argue?" :)

15 agree | 54 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:04 AM MST on Wed., May. 28, 2008 re: "Poll says majority of Californians back gay marriage"

AMERICA CALLING said:
well the poll came out of san fran what did you expect

7 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:44 AM MST on Sun., May. 25, 2008 re: "Same-sex marriage opponents ask for delay"

Examiner Reader said:
the recent upheld is just raising their hopes. once it goes to the public to decide by the vote, they will be shot down. they're going up against family values, traditional laws, and the universal thinking that marriage is between a man and a woman and not harrington marrying another harrington.

7 agree | 15 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:37 AM MST on Sat., May. 24, 2008 re: "California marriage opponents seek five-month delay"

Examiner Reader said:
I'm just trying to find out what the law is. Is it "Gay Marriage" or "Same Sex Marriage"? The news media seems to use these terms interchangeably; but they are not necessarily the same. Which is it?

6 agree | 18 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:04 PM MST on Thu., May. 22, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

Examiner Reader said:
I think if two people are in love why not get a marriage lic, gay people are sweet honest and it's just that they like the same sex so what! they are commited to their partners i disagree with what paul priore had to say.

8 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:52 AM MST on Tue., May. 20, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

Examiner Reader said:
Paul - How sad for you, that you would feel the need to be so vitriolic based on your personal circumstances. Just because you choose to surround yourself with a group of people like you describe, and have had negative experiences because of it, certainly doesn't make what you say the reality for the thousands upon thousands of gay people who lead productive lives and expect equal treatment under the law. Shame on you for supporting an unconstitutional ban.

9 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:09 PM MST on Fri., May. 16, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

Paul Priore (Flushing, New York said:
Re: California Supreme Court Decision to approve Gay Marriage & Civil Unions. I am a Gay Man and I am totally against Gay Marriages and Civil Unions. I am outraged and very disappointed that Californian and any other state for that matter would approve and pass such a law. Gay people are not loyal to their partners; they profess their love but all the while they are cheating on their lovers behind their backs. We talk about unity, being loyal and so on but where are the Gay People supporting people that were discriminated against at their jobs, or while walking down the street or people that have Aids and other illnesses, you don’t see or hear them protesting that, why? I hope the people of California vote to strike down the California Supreme court decision to approve Gay Marriage this coming November. Gay People forget what Gay Pride is really about and what the struggles were. Gay People think that Gay Pride is only for getting drunk, doing drugs and dancing, wh

10 agree | 19 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:39 AM MST on Fri., May. 16, 2008 re: "Same-sex marriage lawsuit reaches state’s high court"

Examiner reader said:
Me thinks there are many many more serious problems and issues to deal with. Who cares who marries who? Only small minded bigots. Leave gays alone and put your own house in order.

10 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:13 AM MST on Fri., May. 16, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

Examiner Reader said:
the two together with out any help can not have babies, and remember God made Adam and Eve not Adam and steve. also God made Adam and Eve not madam and Eve.

11 agree | 13 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:07 AM MST on Fri., May. 16, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

Joe said:
You are suppose to have babies with your wife ,not your friends!

9 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:06 AM MST on Fri., May. 16, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

I'm Liberal said:
June are you an idiot? We gay people can have babies. I, a gay man, can easily get a surrogate mother. Heck, I even have females friends who have offered to have my baby. Lesbians can be artificially inseminated. Your ignorance is STAGGERING. We are humans. Equal to you in every way and we deserve the rights associated with marriage. What about straight people who CAN'T have children because they are infertile? Are they somehow less than you? Somehow worthless? You come across like ignorant trash.And I am a better person then you!

8 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:02 AM MST on Fri., May. 16, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

June said:
I knew I could draw you all out ..Name callers tell on them selves.Your agenda is not the norm.Shame on you!

7 agree | 8 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
8:13 PM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "California's top court legalizes gay marriage"

Examiner Reader said:
From 9:02 PM MST on Tue., Dec. 11, 2007 re: "Gay marriage case delayed by "friend-of-court" briefs" Examiner Reader said: The government should get out of marriage entirely. Straight or gay, we need good family law to protect children, we need contracts for interdependent relationships. Marriage is an important institution, but between church and state, it is church, and the state should get out of it. Rename the legal part something else for EVERYONE. And then argue about who gets to make such contracts.

8 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:56 PM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

Examiner Reader said:
June are you an idiot? We gay people can have babies. I, a gay man, can easily get a surrogate mother. Heck, I even have females friends who have offered to have my baby. Lesbians can be artificially inseminated. Your ignorance is STAGGERING. We are humans. Equal to you in every way and we deserve the rights associated with marriage. What about straight people who CAN'T have children because they are infertile? Are they somehow less than you? Somehow worthless? You come across like ignorant trash.

10 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:50 PM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

June said:
Well... we can all agree they will not be having babies and thats a big thumbs up for us straight people!

11 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:15 PM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

Examiner Reader loishawes said:
I disagree

7 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:10 PM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

Dean Nelson said:
Marriage involves forsaking all others and binding yourself to one person in a lifetime partnership. The responsibility of government in this relationship is to hand out punishment to those who violate their marriage vows and to reward those who sue their love partners for divorce. If this were just about love, there would be now need for government involvement. But it is not about love. It is about being able to sue your partner for lots of money. It is about bringing in more business for divorce lawyers. Of course lawyers and judges are going to think this is a wonderful money making scheme.

9 agree | 7 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:55 AM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "Day of reckoning arrives for same-sex marriages"

your liberal better said:
Typical of ignorant true believers on the left and the right, the laws of the land are not based on the emotional wreckage of your life be it religious crankism or feel good leftist whining. I hope that the judges involved base their decision on the laws as they understand them, not the whinny whims of San Francisco's perpetually entitled or the laughable moral outrage of religious half wits.

8 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:49 AM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "Day of reckoning arrives for same-sex marriages"

your liberal better said:
How does this work? The citizens of the state of California vote to not allow gay marriage so the city marries a number of gays and then gets involved in another of its many ridiculous legal idiocies, but when the city mandates its health insurance scheme from on high from our moral betters, its just horrid that business sues and takes its problems to the courts? This city is ran and populated by emotionally wasted and intellectually challenged children.

10 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:08 AM MST on Mon., Mar. 10, 2008 re: "Same-sex marriage decision in justices’ hands"

Examiner Reader said:
While I believe gay people should have the right to marry like anyone else, I find it interesting the gay community is willing to buy back into a "system", both governmental and religious, which has basically treated us like second-class citizens for as long as any of us can remember.

17 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:57 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Same-sex marriage lawsuit reaches state’s high court"

Examiner Reader Praises Chelsea said:
At 15 you are wise beyond your years. Hopefully the "adults" here will learn from your example

9 agree | 9 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
11:19 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Same-sex marriage lawsuit reaches state’s high court"

Examiner Reader said:
As a gay person, I think this whole gay marriage thing is a waste of time, and money. Its funny, when gays discrimmate against each other its fine but when the hetro world does it, its wrong!

14 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
10:20 AM MST on Thu., Mar. 6, 2008 re: "Same-sex marriage lawsuit reaches state’s high court"

Chelsea Taylor-15yrs old said:
The constitution says that all men are created equal, we went thru this sam argument with the slavery problem and i believe we established the fact that that included EVERYONE we cant just say "well every one gets the same rights except you you and you" it defeats the purpose of the entire constitution,

17 agree | 10 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:28 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 5, 2008 re: "Same-sex marriage decision in justices’ hands"

Kenneth Bonacci said:
Once again the majority seeks to impose its will on the minority. That's why we have the Bill of Rights. The individual has a right to his/her place in our society, free from interference not only from the majority, but also from the government. Justice Louis Brandeis in dissent in Olmstead v. United States, 1928: The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness...They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by men. Further; Justice James McReynolds in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923). Without doubt, liberty denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the indiviual to contract, to engage in any common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience,and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized, can't fini

12 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
7:26 PM MST on Tue., Mar. 4, 2008 re: "Gay marriage debate argued in California Supreme Court"

Examiner Reader said:
I think the same sex marriage is Ok. I have a friend getting married with the same sex uder the help of the site BiLoves. And now they live very happily.

9 agree | 11 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
3:03 PM MST on Tue., Mar. 4, 2008 re: "California groups aiming for gay marriage amendment"

Examiner Reader said:
religious "tradition" and legal "precedent" are different entities in my mind. part of the reason america exists today was "non-traditional believers" fleeing persecution/execution by the church/state in england. in america we've sought to limit such over-arching power by attempts at separating church and state, while implementing an overtone democracy.

10 agree | 12 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
6:43 PM MST on Sun., Mar. 2, 2008 re: "California groups aiming for gay marriage amendment"

Examiner Reader said:
You people who espouse that "religion" is not supposed to dictate the laws in America, seem to forget that America was formed and founded on Christian/Judeo ethics which are found, guess where, in the Bible!

24 agree | 33 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
2:42 PM MST on Tue., Feb. 19, 2008 re: "California groups aiming for gay marriage amendment"

New Englander said:
I have said it once and I say it again.......these right wing reactionaries are going to kill us in November. Who the hell cares if someone is gay?

43 agree | 65 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
5:05 PM MST on Sat., Feb. 16, 2008 re: "Gansler supports gay marriage bill in Maryland"

Examiner Reader said:
Massachusetts has gay marriage and last time I checked children were not marrying their fathers, men were not marrying their dogs, and women were not marrying four men. Last time I checked, their local society had not fallen pray to a rash of AIDS cases and mayhem had not broken out. What happened? Nothing more than a few extra people allowed to get married. But go ahead, keep claiming that gay marriage will impact straight people in any way.....

81 agree | 56 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
1:03 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Gansler supports gay marriage bill in Maryland"

AA Resident said:
12:28 Our laws as well as many countries are founded on the Jewish law. The ten commandments are Jewish Law. Our Christian heritage is Jewish founded. Follow the law and clean house. Vote the lesser of the evil. Gansler is self rigteaous and cut his nose to spite his face. It won't be the last time. All mighty powerful law maker who is following his own laws. Not hypocritical for a change.

52 agree | 68 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:28 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Gansler supports gay marriage bill in Maryland"

Mark said:
Gansler talks out of both sides of his mouth so he can cover his butt. Professional politician and screw the law. And 9:06 - this country was founded (dec of ind, constitution, bill of rights) on judeo christian principles. What do you think our laws are based on ? Your comments are truly ignorant. Public school product are you ?

77 agree | 66 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:14 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Gansler supports gay marriage bill in Maryland"

Examiner Reader said:
I suggest the AG be recalled for being too busy playing politics and not doing the job he is being PAID to do. It is time taxpayers got rid of people in government that do not do their jobs. That is how it works in private industry.

70 agree | 60 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:10 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Gansler supports gay marriage bill in Maryland"

Examiner Reader said:
Since when is it the job of the AG to ADVOCATE moral responsibility?

65 agree | 73 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:04 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Gansler supports gay marriage bill in Maryland"

Examiner Reader said:
Doug Gansler is a Liberal who will do or say anything to gain votes. Typical of the type of panderer Maryland voters adore. Codifying gay “marriage” into law will have very negative consequences, leading to anything goes including legalizing Islamic bigamy. But who cares when it “feels” so right? Maryland and its foolish voters deserve the pain from the unintentional fallout.

68 agree | 72 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
12:02 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Gansler supports gay marriage bill in Maryland"

Examiner Reader said:
Why doesn't he prosecute criminals? This is the usual crap we get from these political idiots.

50 agree | 70 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:17 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Calif. Supreme Court schedules hearing on gay marriage"

Mark said:
Why don't they just call it something other than "marriage" and be done with it. That's what ticks people off because it's not marriage for the purpose of keeping the human race going. Call it a "cohabitational tax and benefits agreement". Anything. 6:05 on Wednesday is delusional. It's the Democrats that use the courts to get rulings to their liking when ridiculous legislation is defeated.

61 agree | 64 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
9:06 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Calif. Supreme Court schedules hearing on gay marriage"

Examiner Reader said:
Your religion is not supposed to dictate the laws in American. Wow. Let's go and make laws against every literal thing the bible says because you, one individual, believe in it. Legislators are not hired to represent THEIR religions in office. Way to go Gansler, who's job it is to further justice and equality as Maryland's highest legal official. I challenge anyone to give a valid reason against gay marriage besides that you think YOUR religion opposes it. Me thinks you need to discover a country where only your religion is practiced, maybe sort of like the Taliban. They seem to be right with your rationale. The day that straight people all (or even a majority) respect and cherish marriage is the day I'll believe your nonsense about gays possibly destroying that "sacred" institution. Get real. Marriage in this country is a joke and straight people did that to it. BTW gays do have children. People are dumb. God probably would prefer smart people backing him.

65 agree | 57 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree