California Judge Rules Against Ban on Same-sex Marriage
Gay rights groups in California were celebrating victory in the latest round of the protracted struggle over gay marriage yesterday after a judge in San Francisco ruled that the state's ban on homosexual marriage was unconstitutional.
"The denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary," said Richard Kramer, a San Francisco superior court judge. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so."
Gavin Newsome, San Francisco's mayor, said: "This is an important day, but hardly is this effort complete. It is inevitable there will be an appeal."
The ruling follows Mr Newsome's decision last year to instruct city officials to license gay marriages in defiance of state law.
His action led to the issuing of more than 4,000 gay marriage licences in the city.
The four-week marriage spree, which attracted gay couples from across the US, including celebrities such as Roseanne Barr, was halted when the California supreme court, backed by Bill Lockyer, the state's attorney general, ruled that the mayor had exceeded his authority.
But the state supreme court asked a lower court to rule on the broader issue.
That court's decision, handed down yesterday, places San Francisco once more at the heart of the US debate over gay marriage.
In his ruling, Judge Kramer said creating benefits for same-sex couples, such as pension rights, was not sufficient.
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal," he wrote. Opponents of gay marriage, and the main presidential candidates in last year's election, said they favoured giving gay couples equal rights, while insisting marriage should be between heterosexuals.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Judge Kramer wrote.
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."
Ultimately, the matter is likely to be decided by the state's supreme court and by the state legislature. Two bills currently before the legislature would place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages before the voters in a November ballot.
In 2000 California voters approved a proposition defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"The denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary," said Richard Kramer, a San Francisco superior court judge. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so."
Gavin Newsome, San Francisco's mayor, said: "This is an important day, but hardly is this effort complete. It is inevitable there will be an appeal."
The ruling follows Mr Newsome's decision last year to instruct city officials to license gay marriages in defiance of state law.
His action led to the issuing of more than 4,000 gay marriage licences in the city.
The four-week marriage spree, which attracted gay couples from across the US, including celebrities such as Roseanne Barr, was halted when the California supreme court, backed by Bill Lockyer, the state's attorney general, ruled that the mayor had exceeded his authority.
But the state supreme court asked a lower court to rule on the broader issue.
That court's decision, handed down yesterday, places San Francisco once more at the heart of the US debate over gay marriage.
In his ruling, Judge Kramer said creating benefits for same-sex couples, such as pension rights, was not sufficient.
"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal," he wrote. Opponents of gay marriage, and the main presidential candidates in last year's election, said they favoured giving gay couples equal rights, while insisting marriage should be between heterosexuals.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Judge Kramer wrote.
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional."
Ultimately, the matter is likely to be decided by the state's supreme court and by the state legislature. Two bills currently before the legislature would place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages before the voters in a November ballot.
In 2000 California voters approved a proposition defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Use the feedback form below to submit your comments.

Use the form below to email this article to your friends.

- Come Out Swinging for Same-Sex Marriage
- Texas Voters Approve Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
- Senate Blocks Same-sex Marriage Ban
- Canadian Court Backs Same-sex Marriages
- Missouri Votes to Ban Same-sex Marriage
- California Court Blocks Gay Marriages
- Bush Backs Bar on Gay Marriage
- California Landmark Bill Grants Legality for Gay Marriage
- Pride and Prejudice
- Evangelical Leader Quits Over Gay Sex Allegation
- Mayor Suspended Over Gay Wedding
- South African Parliament Legalizes Civil Unions
- California Court Supports Ban on Gay Marriage
- Federal Judge Deems Nebraska’s Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional
- French Mayor Announces Plan to Conduct First Gay Wedding
- Gays win the numbers game
- ‘Dear Abby’ Supports Gay Marriage
- NY Gay Marriages Declared Legit by Massachusetts Judge
- Robertson’s Christian Coalition Stumbles Again
- Gay Marriage Defeated Again in Maine
- California Court Upholds State Ban on Gay Marriage
- Miss California Defends Anti-Gay Marriage Views on Today Show
- California Gay Marriage Ban Spawns Spate of Legal Actions
- Connecticut Supreme Court Says Gays Can Legally Marry
- Californians Lean Toward Supporting Gay Marriage, Poll Finds
- First Gay Marriages in California Proceed Smoothly
- First Gay Couple Marries in California
- California High Court Refuses Stay; Gay Marriages to Proceed
- New York to Recognize Out of State Gay Marriages as Legal
- Californians Turn Tide to Support Gay Marriage
- Evangelical Minister in Gay Sex Scandal Admits "Indiscretions"
- NJ Supreme Court: Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Equal Rights
- House Rejects Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage
- New York, Georgia High Courts Rule Against Gay Marriage
- Senate Rejects Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage



