SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - The California Supreme Court announced today it will hear arguments in San Francisco on March 4 on whether there is a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The court's seven justices will hold an unusual three-hour long hearing in their State Building courtroom on six consolidated cases filed by groups opposing and supporting same-sex marriage.

The announcement means that a final decision on whether gay and lesbian couples can marry in California is due by early June.

Under normal procedures, California courts must issue a written ruling 90 days after hearing arguments in a case.

The state high court is the last stop on a legal journey that began in San Francisco Superior Court after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom four years ago unsuccessfully sought to allow city officials to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

After San Francisco officials had issued about 4,000 licenses in four weeks in 2004, the state Supreme Court halted the practice and later ruled the city had no authority to issue the licenses and that they were invalid.

But the high court said it was willing to allow separate proceedings to test the constitutionality of state laws requiring marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Eventually, six lawsuits were filed - four by the city of San Francisco and 19 gay and lesbian couples seeking a right to marry and two by traditional-values groups opposed to same-sex marriage.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge struck down the state laws in 2005. But in 2006, a state appeals court overturned that decision.

The appeals court said the Legislature and voters had a rational basis for restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples while at the same time giving same-sex couples equal benefits through the state's domestic partnership system.

The case then went to the state Supreme Court, which will have the final word on interpreting the rights provided by the California constitution.

— Bay City News

Comments from Examiner Readers

8:29 AM MST on Fri., May. 16, 2008 re: "Celebration time for marriage advocates"

Examiner Reader said:
It is a good news that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. I have a friend getting married with the same sex under the help of the site BiLoves (for ppl exploring sexuality, coming out, enjoying life, having fun, etc.). And they live happily and wonderfully.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

2:02 PM MST on Fri., Feb. 8, 2008 re: "State court denies same-sex marriage"

Examiner Reader said:
If gay people want to get married and try their hand at improving on the 50% of the heterosexual marriages which already fail in this country, why not let them? I haven't heard much in the way of protest from divorce attorneys. what i find even more interesting is a considerable portion of the gay community are apparently willing to buy back into a system (church and state) which, for the last 200 plus years in this country (even longer in other countries) which has, more or less, treated us as second-class citizens. Personally, I'd rather go on living in "sin" with my partner and risk "burning in hell" as arguably a possible consequence.

62 agree | 52 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:28 AM MST on Fri., Sep. 21, 2007 re: "State court denies same-sex marriage"

Examiner Reader said:
"AT 408 PM on Tuedays an Examiner Readers wrote "God is the one who determined what constitutes a marriage union"...thats fine and dandy for you, but guess what I don't believe in your god, so those words mean nothing to me, thery're simply only words not my belief..." Your disbelief does not make God nonexistent, but I guess someone like you would not understand that.

132 agree | 99 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:08 PM MST on Wed., Sep. 19, 2007 re: "State court denies same-sex marriage"

Jabononymous said:
Yeah, ok they are only words to you, but it looks like in this case what God defines marraige as, trumps what to you believe are only words!

142 agree | 107 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

10:15 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 19, 2007 re: "State court denies same-sex marriage"

Examiner Reader said:
AT 408 PM on Tuedays an Examiner Readers wrote "God is the one who determined what constitutes a marriage union"...thats fine and dandy for you, but guess what I don't believe in your god, so those words mean nothing to me, thery're simply only words not my belief...

134 agree | 132 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

4:08 PM MST on Tue., Sep. 18, 2007 re: "State court denies same-sex marriage"

Examiner Reader said:
God is the one who determined what constitutes a marriage union. He clearly stated that a "man shall leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife." (Man and Woman) The sanctity of marriage is between a woman and a man. The problem is not that different religious beliefs determine what happiness is, but with those who choose to believe that God is not the author of what determines the sanctity of the marriage bond. Even if a law was passed for same-sex marriages God would not recognized those marriages, according to scripture. And, yes I know the argument of how do we know that all scripture is of God, but someone's disbelief or lack of faith in scripture being God's word does not make it null and void or change the fact that it is God's word. It seems to me that those who are fighting for the right of same sex marriages are the ones who are "pushing their belief" on others. Your issue is with God not man.

142 agree | 119 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:41 PM MST on Tue., Sep. 18, 2007 re: "State court denies same-sex marriage"

Bill said:
O'Malley was supposed to fix electric rates. He didn't O'Malley was supposed to be for the little man. He's isn't (raising sales, gas, and income taxes) O'Malley was supposed to help the gay community w/the marriage issue. He couldn't. Are there any O'Malley supporters that aren't disappointed yet?

110 agree | 131 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:37 PM MST on Tue., Sep. 18, 2007 re: "Gay group awaits marriage ruling"

Examiner Reader said:
The sanctity of marriage vows is between a man and a woman. If two females or two males want to live together and have property rights, inheritance rights, etc., etc., they should form a legal partnership and that would take care of any problems.

139 agree | 122 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:59 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 21, 2007 re: "Gay group awaits marriage ruling"

Examiner Reader said:
When those who claim their religious freedom is at stake, morals are declining and cry "Let the People Vote", I ask MAINSTREAM CITIZENS TO THINK ABOUT THE FOLLOWING. Religious freedom?? Exactly what does that mean? That the religious values of one group has the right to determine the lives of everyone else? That the views of one group is the only one of value? That the religious views of one group must be forced on everyone else? Is only that one group allowed to determine what constitutes "community values"? Seems to me that the Declaration of Independence also says,"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Yet only one group, with their religious view, seem to be the only group that believes it is their "right" to determine what happiness is.

139 agree | 167 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:36 AM MST on Sat., Apr. 21, 2007 re: "Gay group awaits marriage ruling"

Examiner Reader said:
Tell the Christians to start acting like Christians and get rid of their bigotry. They are identical to the same people who used the bible to justify slavery, and now they have a new group to hate. These conservatives are victims of absolutist religions, they are brainswashed from an early age, and all you have to do is look at the world today to see where that leads, and where even worse examples of it were perpetrated by the catholic church that kept the world in bondage for the 1300 years of the dark ages, and murdered 10's of millions of Muslims, affecting their culture and contributing to their own extremism. A hundred years, or less from now, most people will look back at religious bigotry against gays and realize how stupid and terrible it is, all in the name of God, and totally corrupting the meaning of Jesus life on earth. And if these churches don't change, they will die off, good riddance to them.

139 agree | 143 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate