Cases on Gay Unions Laid Out

Arguments are expected to conclude today before a Superior Court judge in the cases that will ultimately decide whether the state’s gays and lesbians should be granted civil marriage rights.

Judge Richard Kramer heard a full day of arguments on the matter Wednesday in a courtroom packed with same-sex couples and the curious public.

The combined challenges to state laws limiting marriage to “between a man and a woman” are expected to reach the California Supreme Court within two years. Kramer repeatedly assured lawyers that he would create a full record for the inevitable appeals.

In the consolidated cases, the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples who were denied marriage rights claim the law violates the equal protection and privacy clauses of the California Constitution by denying gays and lesbians the “fundamental right” to marry the person of their choosing.

“History or tradition has never been enough to justify continued discrimination. It certainly isn’t here,” Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in arguing for the couples.

Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Louis Mauro, defending existing law, argued that benefits granted to gays and lesbians under domestic partnership legislation create a nearly equal system and confirms the state’s dedication to healthy gay families. However, the tradition of heterosexual marriage should be preserved, he said.

Mauro also said the Legislature was better suited to decide the matter, and that the court should allow that process to move forward.

Nearly all the plaintiff couples sat in the packed courtroom to witness the exchange, which was at times jovial, with the judge.

Also arguing were lawyers for the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund and Campaign for California Families. They argued that same-sex couples have no right to marry and that, by creating such a right, the court would open the door to incestuous and polygamous marriages and thwart the state’s interest in marriage as the healthiest vehicle for heterosexual procreation.

“The same-sex couples here are not seeking access to the traditional institution of marriage,” said Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund representing the Prop. 22 group. “They are seeking to redefine marriage.”

Kramer is expected to make a ruling on whether existing state law is unconstitutional early next year.