Karen Ocamb

The Arguments and Politics of Marriage Equality in California

Filed By Karen Ocamb | March 04, 2008 5:41 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics, Politics
Tags: California State Supreme Court, Jerry Brown, lesbian and gay politics, marriage equality, Robin Tyler

As the nation tries to read the political tea leaves in Super Duper Tuesday Part Deux, Californians are trying to guess which way the state Supreme Court is leaning after hearing oral arguments this morning on marriage equality for same sex couples in what the San Francisco Chronicle calls in its comprehensive preview "the most momentous case the court has heard in decades."

The three hour-plus arguments, presented live on California cable and CNN webcasts, essentially came down to the state and private antigay groups positing that longstanding tradition and the "will of the people" expressed in a 2000 voter-passed initiative (Prop. 22) trumped the petitioners' claim that marriage is a fundamental right belonging to each individual and that denial of that right is unconstitutional based on the protected rights of freedom of expression, privacy, and association as well as state laws banning discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation.

The case before the court consolidated four lawsuits - three by lesbian and gay couples who want to marry (see the L.A. Weekly's excellent article on the lawsuit filed by famed attorney Gloria Allred on behalf of two couples, Robin Tyler and Diane Olson and Rev. Troy Perry and Phillip De Bliek) and the fourth by the city of San Francisco defending Mayor Gavin Newsom's extraordinary decision Valentine's Day 2004 to issue marriage licenses to nearly 4,000 same sex couples until they were enjoined by the court one month later.

In 2005, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that banning same-sex marriage violated "the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice" and that state marriage laws discriminated on the basis of gender. But in 2006 an appeals court said the state could keep the history and tradition of the definition of marriage while also protecting state domestic partnerships laws. In the 2-1 decision, the majority wrote that, "Everyone has a fundamental right to 'marriage,' but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner."

When the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, known as In re Marriage Cases, S147999, 90 briefs poured in - 44 of which were amicus briefs, with 30 of those being filed in support of marriage equality. (Since the case is so high profile, all the briefs have been posted on the court's website where an audio archive of the arguments will also be posted).

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, San Francisco Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart and Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, argued that the 1948 case known as Perez v. Sharp in which the court struck down California law banning interracial marriage, applied to this case. Perez recognized a "right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," and that marriage was a "fundamental right of citizenship." The NAACP sited the case its in amicus brief on behalf of marriage equality.

In his brief, Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger wrote, "Maintaining the long-standing and traditional definition of marriage, while providing same-sex couples with legal recognition comparable to marriage, is a measured approach to a complex and divisive social issue."

The justices grilled Krueger on whether the state thinks "separate is equal here" and whether such animus as existed in Perez exists towards lesbians and gays.

"What distinguishes this is that (at that time) there was marriage and there was nothing," he said. "Racial discrimination had been put on marriage for no reason other white supremacy....[The plaintiffs] "talk about domestic partnership as if it's schoolhouse segregation. ... Yes, same-sex couples aren't allowed to marry under our laws, but that is not the same type of exclusion. ... Here there is equality."

Chief Justice Ronald George took judicial notice of theNew Jersey Civil Union Review Commission report released Feb. 19 that concluded that civil unions create a "second-class status" for lesbian and gay couples, rather than providing marriage equality. New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine has said he would sign a marriage equality bill - but not during an election year. The attorney representing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, said the report was "hearsay."

"Words matter, names matter," Stewart said. "It violates equal protection. ... Once the state has entered into the regulation of marriage ... it has to do so on an equal basis."

"Aren't the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners and marriage partners substantially the same?" asked Justice Ming Chin.

"This case is not about whether the domestic partnership laws are fair or equal, but whether to denying marriage to lesbians and gays is equal," said Stewart.

In 2005 and in 2007 Schwarzenegger vetoed marriage equality bills, authored by openly gay Assemblymember Mark Leno and sponsored by Equality California, the state LGBT lobbying group, which joined in the lawsuit.

EQCA has long argued that the legislature is the duly elected representatives of the people. But in briefs and his oral argument, Glenn Lavy, who represented Prop. 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that, "The people are the ultimate arbiters of public policy" - a position endorsed by Schwarzenegger in his veto messages.

Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California put out a statement:

"The State tried to argue that this inferior, separate and unequal status is somehow sufficient, that providing us with less-than equality was somehow actually equality, and that discrimination could be justified by tradition. Then, the right wing, anti-LGBT organizations did their usual hateful and mean-spirited song and dance, arguing against all evidence that we are inferior parents and should be denied our rights. Shannon and Terry did a terrific job rebutting the arguments of the State of California and the right-wing groups."

(See the Chronicle's quick piece on the oral argumentshere.

One topic the justices broached repeatedly was the potential consequences of their decision. In the brief filed for Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, Kruger said, "One unintended and unfortunate consequence of too radical a change is the possibility of backlash."

Brown - who changed the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman when he was governor in 1977 - also told reporters that rulings that "ride roughshod over the deeply held judgments of society" have unintended consequences - noting how Chief Justice Rose Bird, his appointee to the court, was driven out of office in the 1986 election because of her unpopular stance on the death penalty.

During oral argument, Stewart said that Brown was using "fear tactics."

The court has 90 days to publish what is sure to be a controversial decision.

But the cold hard political reality is that the justices may have already made up their minds and may release their ruling in the next four-to-six weeks - perhaps just after the April 19 deadline for signatures gathered for an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment planned for the November ballot.

Lesbian attorney Diane Abbitt, chair of Equality California's political action committee, says:

"If the initiative qualifies, it will be on the November ballot which will get conservative Republicans out to vote in the Presidential election. It's the same old Karl Rove ploy that worked so well in 2004.

Look at all the out-of-state money that's pouring in - over $650,000 from Focus on the Family and the National Organization for Marriage in Virginia - including $250,000 from the Knights of Columbus - to pay people to gather signatures.

And they're being smart about it. They know that most Californians support giving gay and lesbian couples some measure of equality and would not repeal domestic partnerships. So they're saying that this amends the constitution to simply keep the definition of marriage the same as it is now - between a man and a woman. It makes it easier to gather signatures and vote yes in the election."

Gay people and their allies have formed a coalition called
Equality for All
try to stop the initiative from getting on the ballot.

But on the initiative is on the ballot or not, the marriage decision will be a hot topic during this and upcoming elections. San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, for instance, is up for re-election. But the Republican's decision last September to sign a City Council resolution directing the City Attorney to file a brief in support of the marriage equality case, may cost him votes.

Sanders said his reason was personal - his daughter Lisa is a lesbian. "I've decided to lead with my heart, which is probably obvious right now, to do what I think is right and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice," a tearful Sanders said.

But the consequences will reverberate long past the 2008 elections - especially if Brown decides to run for governor, as expected. Right now his most talked about possible opponents in the Democratic primary - Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - all support marriage equality.

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Michael Bedwell | March 4, 2008 6:57 PM

Thanks so much for all the details, Karen! As I live in San Francisco I was tempted to take today off and try to attend the hearing but feared there'd be no empty seats left...and work responsibilities called.

I'm furious that AG Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown weighed in against us, and not just because I still have an old Right Wing bumper sticker that claimed, "Jerry Brown goes down more than nuclear power plants." And, Good Lawdy Miss Clawdy—his brief argues "backlash" and "unintended consequences"???? While I don't expect a favorable ruling, I hope that one wouldn't be announced until after the Nov. election, but that's not something any man of integrity who would still call himself a friend to the gay community would put in writing in a legal brief.

And I suppose it's too cheeky for anyone to ask this of the justices, but I'd still like to ask Obama if he would trade his marriage for our civil unions.

Thanks for the note.
Please keep track of developments on the San Fran Chron website - www.sfgate.com - they are totally on top of the story.

Additionally, I'm sure the Bay Area Reporter - www.ebar.com - will also have continuous news.

Thanks. KO

Michael Bedwell | March 4, 2008 7:30 PM

The video link below from an SF TV station’s coverage including some questions from judges:


AP video coverage:


And y'all won't believe some of the pictures the SF Chron has, particularly the one in which the anti-marriage equality/"Recriminalize Sodomy" fascists display a huge sign quoting MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., to reinforce their "laws of God" argument [when, of course, there's no record of his speaking about us specifically at all]! This link will take you to it, other pictures, and the Chron's article about today.


“Thank you for giving me two mommies!”—GAVIN NEWSOM FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr. Bedwell, would you also like to ask Hillary if she would trade her demonstrably "sacred" marriage for a civil union?

You are aware that she doesn't support marriage equality for gay people right?

You are aware that she only supports civil unions for gays and lesbians right?

You are aware that her position is, as far as I can tell, identical to Obama's right?

So why would you like to ask this question of Obama but not Hillary?

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | March 5, 2008 12:29 AM

Let’s all cross our fingers and hope the Court doesn’t get any briefs from the Democratic National Committee, whose Chief of Staff Leah Daughtry, a pentecostal (they’re the really nutty ones) minister who says “I believe, as the church believes, that marriage is intended for one man and one woman.” And I hope they don’t know the views of pigheaded right-wingers like Dianne Feinstein, who got the Pink Brick award in 2005 for opposing same sex marriage equality, or Barney Frank, Billary’s campaign manager, who attacked Frisco Mayor Gavin Newsome for holding marriage ceremonies there.

Sorry to say, the California Justices, like everyone in the country, knows that both Clinton and Obama continue to oppose same sex marriage equality based on christian bigotry and superstations. In other words they want the votes of the bigots.

The links between christian bigots and the Democratic opposition to same sex marriage go back to Bill Clinton, aka Billary. Bill Clinton says ‘gay marriage is the kiss of death for Democrats.” He proved he meant that when it first came up for a vote in 1996 when he got the overwhelming majority of Democrats to vote for in. (There was NO movement for a DOMA amendment at the time; that’s a retroactive lie used by Hillaryhacks to excuse what Billary did.)

Time Magazine’s Chief Political Correspondent, Michael Kramer, speaking of the 1996 elections noted that “By the time Clinton arrived in Chicago for his party's convention in August, nothing that hinted at liberalism was left hanging on him. When the President, who had begun his term advocating the rights of gays in the military, came around to supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition for gay and lesbian unions, Dole (his Republican opponent) was wide-eyed. "Is there anything we're for that he won't jump on?" Dole asked. The answer, essentially, was nothing...”

At about the same time Associated Press reported, on October 17, 1996 that ‘After angry complaints from gay-rights advocates, the Clinton campaign on Wednesday replaced an ad running on religious radio stations that boasted of the president's signature on a bill banning gay marriages....The Clinton spot also touted his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, in spite of earlier White House complaints that the Republicans' use of the issue amounted to "gay baiting."’

The backstabbing politics of the national Democrats and their candidates on samesex marriage, ENDA, hate crimes, hate speech and DADT are dishonorable and shameful but nothing new.

diddlygrl | March 5, 2008 5:17 AM

Does anyone really believe that either canidate would risk angering the 'moral majority' out there of christian bigots that run this country?

Both of them look at the polls, and they know that marriage equality is a non-starter among the general population. Where as there is support for hate crimes and ENDA, gay marriage is the one issue that the American public still is against.

so anyway...at the courthouse yesterday...

This is why it is important to have an independent judiciary in a healthy democracy.

When a group of individuals have a grievance against legislation created that is in conflict with constitutional principle they have to be able to bring it to the attention of the court.

Hopefully, the justices (here and elsewhere) can make a determination based on the arguments presented to them, not on polls, the manipulations of desperate politicians, or on the notion that the individuals need to be protected from backlash that might come as a result of a positive decision.

Haven't we already seen backlash from supporting ideas like separate but equal, DOMA, and amendments? Those actions encourage bashing and murder. Declarations of equality help to begin the change that are needed.

Michael Bedwell | March 5, 2008 2:34 PM

"So why would you like to ask this question of Obama but not Hillary?"

Because, despite their "functional" same positions on civil unions, to the best of my knowledge Sen. Clinton has never felt the need to lecture US on what WE should accept unlike Obama who keeps positing that HE has the right to decide. I don't believe she has ever said, as HE has, that "semantics matter to some people"—i.e., equal access to the label "marriage"—but not to HIM. Well, Sen. Obama, it is not about YOU and YOUR relationships. I don't know that she has ever rewritten the definition of "FULL equality" to mean "Full equality EXCEPT FOR that marriage thingy" as HE effectively has.

That is why when he repeatedly says that HIS kind of "civil union" would be just as good as "marriage" then it's fair to imagine asking him if HE'D trade.

Thanks for the details, Karen. Since I couldn't be there I knew I could count on you to fill us in.