WORLD> America
|
WORLD> America
|
|
California court to hear gay marriage ban case
(Agencies)
Updated: 2008-11-20 10:09 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 had opened marriage to same-sex couples in America's most populous state, one of a handful of states, provinces and mostly European countries where such unions are recognized. 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 recognize 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. "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. Trend-setting California is itself 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. Thousands of same-sex marriages may also 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 marriage advocates as well as some opponents had urged the court to consider the ban, because of its importance, but same-sex couple supporters had asked that the ban passed by voters earlier this month be put on hold in the mean time. Some 52 percent of voters agreed to amend the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Gay advocates argued that Californians could not strip a right from a minority with only a majority-approved constitutional amendment. A more rigorous process called a constitutional revision was required, they argued. National Center for Lesbian Rights' legal director Shannon Minter said if the court backed the proposition, then the rights of any group could be stripped by simple majority vote. "It mandates discrimination," he said of Prop 8, adding similar ones would follow. "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 too limited to require a full constitutional revision 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 Prop 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 and was researching. The court said it would hear arguments on the amendment process, the effect of Prop 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 six-to-one decision asked all sides to work quickly and said oral arguments could be held as early as March 2009.
|
