State Supreme Court appears split in gay marriage hearing

The California Supreme Court appeared divided today over the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.

During three hours of arguments by lawyers for and against gay marriage, Justice Joyce L. Kennard questioned whether “the state has effectively conceded there is no valid grounds for distinction” between domestic partnership and marriage.

But at least three of the seven justices repeatedly noted that California voters have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and that the public might not be ready to embrace same-sex marriage.

Justice Carol A. Corrigan indicated that it might be best to leave the question to the public, whose perception of gay marriage, she said, is in the process of “evolving.” She also asked lawyers to show her where the state constitution addressed same-sex marriage.

Justice Carlos R. Moreno’s questions did not make clear which way he was leaning. But he asked a lawyer for the city of San Francisco whether the state’s domestic partnerships gave same-sex couples rights equal to those extended to married couples.

“It’s not equal, your honor,” said Deputy City Atty. Therese M. Stewart.

Moreno asked, “Doesn’t this just boil down to the use of the “m” word, marriage?”

Stewart replied, “That symbol has deep meaning.”

Chief Justice Ronald M. George suggested that the state might want to give same-sex unions a different name because the federal government does not recognize gay marriage. But he also peppered opponents of same-sex marriage with skeptical questions.

The court’s decision will resolve a dispute that began in 2004, when the city and county of San Francisco married nearly 4,000 same-sex couples. The justices have 90 days to decide whether to strike down California law that limits marriage to a man and a woman, and instead to permit same-sex couples to wed.

The courtroom was packed for the long-awaited hearing, with lawyers for various sides taking turns at the podium. Attorneys for same-sex couples and for San Francisco argued that the state marriage law violated equal protection rights and anti-discrimination laws, while lawyers for the attorney general’s and governor’s offices, and for pro-family and religious groups, insisted that cultural tradition justified a ban on gay weddings.

A trial judge in San Francisco had ruled in favor of the gay couples, but that decision was overturned 2-1 by a Court of Appeal panel here. The court received dozens of written arguments from law professors, psychologists, religious groups and civil rights advocates on whether same-sex couples should be permitted to marry.

The seven-member court has six Republicans and one Democrat. It is considered cautious and moderately conservative.

maura.dolan@latimes.com