Justices have 90 days to decide whether to take case
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) | Nov 13, 8:31 PM
Whether gays and lesbians have the right to marry in California moved to the state's highest court Monday, a month after an appeals court ruled against same-sex marriage.
The city of San Francisco filed the appeal to the California Supreme Court, claiming that laws authorizing only heterosexual marriages are unconstitutional discrimination. A lower court had agreed, but an appeals court last month reversed that decision.
The 1st District Court of Appeal ruled that, among other things, it was not the judiciary's role to define marriage — as 61 percent of California voters in 2000 declared marriage as a union between a man and a woman under Proposition 22.
About a dozen gay and lesbian couples who also sued California are expected to file an appeal Tuesday, according to the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
Two of the original plaintiffs, Cristy Chung and Lancy Woo, are opting out of the appeal because they are breaking up.
"We are no longer plaintiffs in this lawsuit because, after 18 years, we have made the difficult decision to separate," the couple said in a prepared statement.
The two said they, however, remained "fully committed to the principle that couples should be able to marry without regard to their sexual orientation."
The seven-member Supreme Court is not obligated to review the appellate court's decision. If it does not, the ruling stands.
If the justices take the case, a decision on same-sex marriage is likely a year or more away. The justices have 90 days to announce their intentions.
Massachusetts is the nation's only state authorizing same-sex marriage.
Last month, the California appeals court voted 2-1 to uphold the state's existing marriage laws, ruling in part that those laws do not discriminate because gays and lesbians get most all the rights of marriage the state confers to heterosexual married couples.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom put the marriage debate in the national spotlight by allowing same-sex couples to get married at City Hall in 2004. California's justices halted the wedding spree and voided the 4,037 marriage licenses while sidestepping the core constitutional question, ruling the mayor did not have authority to make marriage law. The justices, however, invited a challenge to whether banning same-sex marriage was discrimination - a challenge that reached the court Monday.
The high court, nevertheless, has a history of upholding legislation, whether it required employers to provide contraceptives in their health plans or making it a crime to knowingly lodge a false complaint against a police officer.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 7
"Most" is the key word in that sentence. Why should "most" be enough?
As for the couple, I can't imagine how tough it must be to make a relationship work AND try and carry the banner for a group of people. I wish them both happiness.
Let's not forget to mention this situation came about by fiat, declared by the state's supreme court. Let's also not forget to mention this ruling came after, and was in direct contradiction to the known wishes of the people, as demonstrated at the ballot.
Over the last 6 years nearly 30 states have put this issue to the voters, and except for Arizona the vote wasn't even close, being struck down everywhere it's been voted on by the people.
The liberals are always the first to remind us of the dubious "separation of church and state" argument they so dearly love to use, let's see them now stand by those words when it won't be so convenient.
Putting the rights of individuals and more significantly groups of people to popular vote is the act of a mob not a democracy.
Finally, there is no more conservative an ideology than separation of church and state.
You sir, are only half correct. Yes, the Judiciary is in fact, a co-equal branch of government along with the Executive and the Legislature. However, the Judiciary exists to ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION, not to "protect minorities."
If, in the course of enforcing the dictates of the constitution, minorities happen to be protected, that is another matter entirely, and a proper course of action.
First, it is true that technically the role of the courts is to interpret the laws including the constitution. It is the constitution which provides protections for minority rights—which is critical to the success of a democracy. Rex T may want to argue this point but that is a longer discussion.
I don't think I am confusing mob rule with majority rule. The rights of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution are to equal treatment under the law.
When the majority of American citizens did not support racial integration of our schools and state and local governmental officials were determined to ignore the Constitution and the Court's interpretation thereof—to enforce the will of the people—it was the Courts though the federal military which had to defy the majority.
I am not sure I understand Rex T's comment. Yes, we are a republic which means that the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them. It does not mean that the rights of the individual or groups of individuals should be put to popular vote.