The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on a group of marriage cases filed over the past four years, brought by 23 gay and lesbian couples who have challenged a state law that denies them the right to marry. The court now has 90 days to determine whether that law, passed by voter initiative in 2000, violates the state's Constitution. The decision will most likely be handed down in June--only a few months, analysts note, before the two parties' presidential conventions. "Whatever the court does, I'd think it will be the center of attention," says Douglas Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University. "We know this issue causes a ruckus."
No one doubts that. Same-sex marriage first turned into a political football in 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy laws criminalizing homosexual sex were unconstitutional. Dissenters on the court predicted that the way was being paved for marriage. Early the next year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay couples did in fact have the right to marry under the state's Constitution, becoming the first state to legalize gay marriage. Lawmakers across the country ran to the barricades: Constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage now exist in 26 states.
In California, meanwhile, the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, took a different approach. Soon after the Massachusetts justices handed down their decision, Newsom began granting marriage licenses to nearly 4,000 same-sex couples who lined up outside City Hall. Those certificates were invalidated a few months later by the state Supreme Court, which ruled that he didn't have the authority to issue them, citing a state law, Proposition 22, passed in 2000 by more than 60 percent of voters, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The next day, cases were filed challenging the constitutionality of the law.
So how will this political tussle end? Even after a few relatively quiet years on the sidelines, the issue of same-sex marriage seems to be as heated as ever. Outside the courtroom yesterday, protesters waved signs saying, "Sodomy is sin," and "Stop using Jesus to promote hatred." The arguments made by the lawyers revealed little room for compromise: A San Francisco city attorney and a lawyer for the National Center for Lesbian Rights said disallowing gay couples from marrying is unconstitutional discrimination akin to the antimiscegenation laws of the 1940s. Lawyers for the state of California and the governor's office maintained, meanwhile, that the institution of marriage has a long history of including only opposite-sex couples. A record 45 amicus briefs were filed in the case, many from religious organizations on both sides of the issue.
Even in this most liberal of liberal states, legal analysts say, there is no certainty about how the justices will rule. Only one of the justices on the California Supreme Court was appointed by a Democrat; the other six were all nominated by Republicans. And while three of the justices seemed to be swayed by those arguing on behalf of the state, two or three justices also seemed to be leaning toward the petitioners.
The court's decision, ultimately, may not be as simple as an up-or-down vote. The justices not only have to mull over voters' intentions when they passed Proposition 22; they also must wrestle with the fact that the state Legislature has passed two bills in the past several years legalizing same-sex marriage, only to watch the governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, veto them. (In both instances, Schwarzenegger said he wanted to wait until the cases now before the state Supreme Court had been decided.)
The California court has three broad choices, legal experts say:
-- The Massachusetts approach. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay couples have the right to marry. Many experts doubt that there are enough votes on the California court to support such a sweeping decision, even if the state's Constitution allowed it, something even liberal members of the court ruminated about yesterday. "There is nothing in the state Constitution that says there is a right to same-sex marriage," Justice Joyce Kennard said at one point. It's possible, of course, that the justices could still find the grounds to invalidate Proposition 22, then demand that marriage licenses be issued immediately, but after yesterday's hearing, that may be a long shot.
-- The New York approach. In 2006, the highest court in the state, the Court of Appeals, ruled that denying marriage to same-sex couples was not a violation of the state Constitution. Legal experts say this is entirely possible in California, too. "It's hard for me to see the court invalidating this statute on the arguments that have been made," says Kmiec. One possible outcome: A divided court could find the statute constitutional, while ensuring the state's domestic partnerships be completely equal in every way to marriage, and leave it at that.
-- The New Jersey approach. In 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples cannot be denied the rights and privileges of married couples but left it to the Legislature to determine whether those partnerships would be called marriages. The Legislature decided to call them "civil unions," joining Vermont and New Hampshire. Because California already has a strong domestic partnership law--and because the Legislature has already shown its willingness to legalize gay marriage--that choice would be more complicated here.
During oral arguments, several of the justices seemed inclined to push the final say on this matter into the political realm. "These questions are best left to the democratic process," said Justice Kathryn Werdegar. Which means the court could rule the law unconstitutional, while pushing the final decision on to the state Assembly. If that happened, the Legislature, dominated by Democrats, would very likely pass a law legalizing gay marriage. The governor has said he will respect the court's wishes, which means he would probably sign it. Then, of course, the political football for the presidential contenders can really begin.
By Justin Ewers