The California
supreme court said Wednesday it would not immediately
decide whether a state ban on same-sex marriage is
unconstitutional, keeping marriage equality for gays
and lesbians off-limits while leaving the issue in
legal limbo. Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer and others wanted
to bypass an appeals court hearing to expedite a definitive
ruling from the state's highest court. They asked the
justices to directly review a trial judge's ruling
that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
"We're
disappointed," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for
Lockyer, who wanted the court to overturn the ruling and
uphold state law. "We thought that the cases were ripe
for a prompt and final resolution without having to go
through the court of appeal."
The case will
remain before the first district court of appeal in San
Francisco, where it is likely to take months for a decision
on the controversial issue--one that could
confront California voters next year in the form of a
proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex
marriage and repealing domestic-partner benefits. Randy
Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for
California Families, who is pushing the amendment,
welcomed the high court's decision. "It's very good
that the high court declined to hear this case," said
Thomasson. "The high court should never turn marriage
upside down and inside out."
Without comment,
the 5-0 decision, with one justice not participating and
one vacancy on the court, came a week after the court ruled
that gay and lesbian domestic partners are entitled to
virtually the same benefits as married couples. The
high court normally does not resolve cases until they
have worked their way through the lower courts. One of the
last times it did, however, involved same-sex
marriage. In August 2004 the court ruled unanimously
that San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom had overstepped
his authority when he issued marriage licenses to same-sex
couples during a month-long wedding march that began in
February that year.
The court took
the case at the time because gay and lesbian newlyweds
were seeking spousal benefits not authorized by the state at
the time. Many of those benefits are now available
under the domestic-partners law that took effect in
January. In its ruling at the time, the court also
voided the 4,000 gay and lesbian marriages sanctioned by the
city but did not resolve whether the California
constitution allows same-sex marriage.
That issue was
taken up by San Francisco superior court judge Richard
Kramer, who ruled in March in favor of a challenge brought
by Newsom and gays and lesbians who were denied
marriage certificates. Kramer wrote, "It appears that
no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in
this state to opposite-sex partners." San Francisco city
attorney Dennis Herrera said he was disappointed the
issue would not be quickly resolved, but he said he
was confident the courts would ultimately uphold
Kramer's ruling.
While the high
court declined to immediately review Kramer's decision, it
could reach the justices in a year if voters don't approve
the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex
marriage. Thomasson and opponents of same-sex marriage
are attempting to qualify the amendment for next
year's ballot. If passed, the same-sex litigation would be
moot, and same-sex couples currently registered as
domestic partners would lose almost all the rights
they currently enjoy. (AP)
