State Argues on the Right to Marry

The state attorney general filed a legal brief Friday defending California’s marriage laws, arguing that although committed relationships, gay or straight, “form the cornerstone of nurturing families and a stable society,” voters and legislators have reserved marriage for heterosexuals for more than a century.

That “common and traditional understanding of marriage” should be upheld unless voters or lawmakers alter it, Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer argued in response to cases challenging the constitutionality of California’s marriage laws.

Heading to High Court

The matter, coordinated before a San Francisco County Superior Court judge, is expected to reach the California Supreme Court within two years.

Though gay-marriage opponents in other states have attacked same-sex relationships as unstable and harmful to children, Lockyer dismissed those arguments as inconsistent with California’s efforts to extend rights to gay and lesbian couples.

Instead, the brief stated that California’s generous domestic partner benefit law -- which takes full effect in January -- is evidence that “California is dedicated to providing equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples.”

The “understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman has long historical roots, and it is legitimate for California to respect this understanding as it extends virtually the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples,” the state argued.

The California Supreme Court last month ruled that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had no legal right to order his county clerk in February to issue same-sex marriage licenses -- ultimately granted to more than 4,000 couples.

But the justices also invited San Francisco to challenge the constitutionality of state marriage law in Superior Court. City officials did so. A separate suit challenging the law’s constitutionality was filed on behalf of a dozen same-sex couples denied marriage rights.

Guaranteed Rights

Early last month, lawyers for San Francisco and the couples argued that by denying same-sex couples the fundamental right to marry, California law intrudes on their “rights to liberty, privacy and equality” guaranteed by the state Constitution.

Those plaintiffs also argued that since an entire class of citizens is being denied rights, the court should apply a higher level of scrutiny to the state’s marriage laws when determining whether to uphold them.

Lawyers for the state Friday countered that the strict standard should not apply. Rather, the judge need only determine whether legislators had a “rational basis” for restricting marriage to heterosexuals.