SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - In less than three months, Californians will know whether gays and lesbians have a legal right to marry in the state, putting a possible end to four years of legal wrangling on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The California Supreme Court took up the matter Tuesday, hearing more than 3½ hours of highly anticipated oral arguments and peppering attorneys on both sides with questions in order to decide whether state statutes defining marriage as between a man and a woman violates the California Constitution.

Arguments were made supporting same-sex marriage by San Francisco’s City Attorney, along with a stable of lawyers representing 19 same-sex couples. The group represented six cases that had their lawsuits combined to form a single case asserting that the 2000 voter-approved ban on gay marriage, Proposition 22, denies equal protection of the laws based on sexual orientation, infringes on the right to marry and denies the right to privacy.

In 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom authorized marriage licenses to be granted to same-sex couples, and thousands streamed to City Hall to say their vows only to have the state Supreme Court nullify the marriages later that year. Although a trial court judge in San Francisco later ruled on behalf of gay marriages in 2005, an appeals court overturned the decision in 2006.

The state’s highest court has 90 days to issue an opinion, which will be the final word on whether same-sex couples can marry legally in California.

Randy Thomasson, the founder of the Campaign for Children and Families, submitted Prop. 22 and is now circulating a ballot petition for a state constitutional amendment that would only recognize opposite-sex marriages and eliminate state-granted domestic-partnership rights.

“If the high court destroys marriage, in three months there will be a vote of the people,” he said.

Whether the ballot box was an appropriate place for the issue of same-sex marriage to be decided was a focal point during the justices questioning of Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger. The state’s lawyer also argued that the tradition of marriage as between a man and woman was at the heart of previous court decisions affecting marriage.

But societal traditions were exactly those that have been overturned in previous court cases, such as 1948’s Perez v. Hilton, when interracial marriages in California were legalized, argued attorneys for same-sex marriages.

Justices questioned, however, whether previous justices had in mind same-sex marriages when they wrote decisions the attorneys were now using.

The justices also dug at the notion that the rights and benefits granted by the state to domestic partners somehow made same-sex couples separate but equal in the eyes of the state.

Assistant City Attorney Therese Stewart, arguing on behalf of The City, said the domestic partnership law “highlights the irrationality” of denying marriage to same-sex couples.

Same-sex-marriage opponents appeared to suffer a setback after attorney Mathew Staver, representing the Campaign for California Families, argued that marriage “would lose its meaning” if gay couples could marry.

Justice Ming Chin, who had questioned gay-rights attorneys toughly, asked Stewart, “Did he just make your argument for you?”

dsmith@examiner.com

Comments from Examiner Readers

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.

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!

1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

2:15 PM MST on Thu., May. 15, 2008 re: "California's top court overturns gay marriage ban"

Examiner Reader loishawes said:
I disagree

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

2 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

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

Report as inappropriate

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

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

Report as inappropriate

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!

6 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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,

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

Report as inappropriate

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

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

Report as inappropriate

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.

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

Report as inappropriate

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.

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

Report as inappropriate

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!

14 agree | 21 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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?

33 agree | 42 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.....

56 agree | 35 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

32 agree | 47 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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 ?

50 agree | 45 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

46 agree | 38 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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?

39 agree | 45 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

43 agree | 47 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

36 agree | 47 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

45 agree | 49 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

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.

54 agree | 43 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:38 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Calif. Supreme Court schedules hearing on gay marriage"

Examiner Reader said:
maybe they dont lack "political courage" rather they have strong "biblical ethics and morals". its VERY clear what the Bible says about homosexuality. period.

51 agree | 54 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

7:48 AM MST on Fri., Feb. 15, 2008 re: "Gansler supports gay marriage bill in Maryland"

Examiner Reader said:
I think it's pretty clear. Gansler is already jockying for position. He's got eyes for the Govenors Mansion. Forgive me, but I always thought the Attorney General was supposed to enforce laws already on the books -- and not to lobby for new law. If he doesn't like being the AG, he should do us all a favor and step down.

48 agree | 46 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

8:03 AM MST on Thu., Feb. 7, 2008 re: "State high court to hear gay marriage case"

Examiner Reader said:
There are bunch people that don't believe Christianity,so basically exlude them and their marriage are reall just because they don't share your beliefs

67 agree | 53 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

3:22 PM MST on Wed., Feb. 6, 2008 re: "Calif. Supreme Court schedules hearing on gay marriage"

Examiner Reader said:
Man shall not lie with man, neither woman with woman, it is an abomination in the sight of the Lord God.....

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

Report as inappropriate

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.

67 agree | 70 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:14 AM MST on Tue., Oct. 16, 2007 re: "Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage"

Myself for Mayor said:
Why don't the politicians just create a separate amendment for gay marriage? Gays should not have the same benefits as straights simply because they don't have kids. I mean come on, gays want to be legally married because of the benefits of taxes and domestic partner benefits. So let's create a way for them to have their benefits which differ from that of straights.

73 agree | 80 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

9:37 PM MST on Sun., Oct. 14, 2007 re: "Schwarzenegger Vetoes Gay Marriage"

Samantha said:
people should be able to love whoever and whenever they feel. One thing no living being can control is Love and emotions.

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

Report as inappropriate

7:18 AM MST on Mon., Sep. 24, 2007 re: "Gay couples vow to continue fight"

Wallace said:
The people of this "progressive" country are still hanging nooses from trees and burning crosses in front of black and interracial couples homes, promoting segregated school systems, and in denial about race relations...IN 2007! How likely is it that the very small percentage of people that actually do vote, will be able to remove the prejudice and fear from their hearts in the private act of voting, to vote to just let people love and live the way they want to. Particularly when that love and way of life has no impact on their personal relationships whatsoever! This is crazy that this is even still an issue. If gay people want to get married, let them. Straight people go through marriages and throw them away as casually as a trash from McDonalds...Who is really destroying the institution of marriage? MEN and WOMEN! Let people be. You don't want someone telling you who and how to love...why should gay people...People always attack what they don't know or understand.

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

Report as inappropriate

8:54 AM MST on Thu., Sep. 20, 2007 re: "Gay couples vow to continue fight"

Irate Taxpayer said:
The only way to put this issue to rest is to have a national public referendum. Let the people of the this country decide the issue via ballot box.I think that the people of this country are progressive enough to decide the issue and then enact the requisite laws.

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

Report as inappropriate

8:42 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 19, 2007 re: "Gay couples vow to continue fight"

Examiner Reader: said:
@6:00 there is double standard in maryland...man has to be married to his wife, in order to claim her on his health insurance..but two gay people can claim each other as domestic partners.... now is that right? NO IT ISN'T. so don't talk about fair.

107 agree | 97 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:05 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 19, 2007 re: "Gay couples vow to continue fight"

Examiner Reader said:
I have had enough of the hypocritial double-standards that permeate through the Republican mindset, trying to rewrite the laws, and when that fails, trying to get what they want through the courts. Are the people who demonize Democrats and liberals even aware of the exact same, if not worse, behavior coming from their own party? Examples: See California electoral votes activism, Senator Criag, Tom "The corruptor" DeLay, and other various sundry GOP facist double talk issues. Double standard indeed.

91 agree | 108 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

6:00 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 19, 2007 re: "Gay couples vow to continue fight"

Examiner Reader said:
@12:35, I guess as long as you have your rights, no one else matters, huh? Typical Republican double-standards. Also, what arguement to gay people make that they are different? I didn't see that anywhere. We are all different individual, but under the law, we are the same. Go take civics 101, I can't stand to waste any more time correcting the uneducated.

86 agree | 84 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

5:57 AM MST on Wed., Sep. 19, 2007 re: "Gay couples vow to continue fight"

King said:
Rewrite what laws? YOu are the same type of person who creid foul when interracial couples had to "change laws" so they could be married in the 60's. So keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. The United States provides for equal protection under the law, and gay couple do not receive that becuase marriage affords certain legal rights that unmarried people do not have. You are denying them that right in the name of some fabricated definition of marriage.

112 agree | 106 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate

12:35 AM MST on Wed., Jun. 20, 2007 re: "New York's state Assembly approves gay marriage bill"

Examiner Reader said:
I've had about enough of the homosexual hyenas and their fawning liberal sponsors trying to rewrite the laws, and when that fails, trying to get what they want through the courts. You can't argue that, on one hand you are different and, on the other hand, you are the same. And please keep the infantile tactics off the floor of the Assembly; their behavior is embarassing enough.This is another example of how minorities take themselves far too seriously and how the government has encouraged them for far too long.

97 agree | 97 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree

Report as inappropriate