Court to hear gay marriage case
by
2008-11-20 07:47
San Francisco - California's
Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to hear a legal challenge
against the state's voter-approved ban on gay marriage and let
the ban stand in the meantime.
A decision by the same court in May opened marriage to
same-sex couples in America's most populous state.
When state voters passed the ban on November 4, social
conservatives celebrated, but nationwide protests by gays and
other ban opponents since then have given the debate new life.
The court case also pits two fundamental concepts of US
democracy against one another, with gay marriage advocates
saying the proposition would open the doors to systematic
repression of minorities and opponents saying courts must
recognise the will of the people under separation of powers
doctrine.
"I am optimistic that the Supreme Court will affirm that
separate is not equal," San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said
in a statement. He has compared the fight for gay marriage to
the 1960s civil rights battle against majority-tolerated
segregation.
Some 52% of voters agreed to amend the state
constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
"This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of
California," said Andrew Pugno, counsel for the gay marriage
ban proponents, who also wanted the matter settled in court.
Trend-setting California is divided over the issue, with
cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles more open to gay
marriage, and inland valleys, often compared to the socially
conservative Midwest, against it.
About 20 000 same-sex marriages may hang in the balance,
since the court asked for arguments on whether the ban,
Proposition 8, would affect unions between the May court ruling
and the November election.
Legal limbo
Those marriages have been seen as being in legal limbo,
despite state officials including Gov Arnold Schwarzenegger
saying they should stand.
Gay advocates argued that Californians could not strip a
right from a minority with only a majority vote - the
constitutional amendment process followed for Proposition 8. A
more rigorous process called a constitutional revision was
required, they argued.
National Centre for Lesbian Rights' legal director Shannon
Minter said defeat for his side would open the door to measures
targeting other minorities.
"It mandates discrimination," he said of Proposition 8. "I
really can't imagine a more serious issue before the court, or
a more frightening one."
Ban supporters said the single-sentence change was a
relatively small measure and that the state constitution gave
wide latitude to the people through the amendment process.
"It would be a radical departure from 150 years of
precedent (to overturn Proposition 8)," said Pugno, calling the
challenge a "long shot".
"I think the larger question is going to be what is the
status of the marriages that were created prior to the
election," he said, adding that he had not taken a legal stand
on the issue.
The court said it would hear arguments on the amendment
process, the effect of Proposition 8 on same-sex marriages
before the election, and on whether the amendment violated the
state's separation-of-powers doctrine.
The court in a 6-1 decision asked all sides to work quickly
and said oral arguments could be held as early as March 2009.