Mar 18, 2005  |  By: EARTHA MELZE  | COMMENTS     

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled this week that the state’s marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples and is unconstitutional.

“It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners,” wrote Kramer in a 27-page opinion that was released Monday.

He pointed to the overturning of laws that banned inter-racial marriage to argue that forbidding people of different races to marry was unconstitutional even though it was traditional.

Tradition and a state interest in promoting procreation, Kramer argued, are not rational reasons to deny same-sex couples the benefits of marriage, which is recognized as a fundamental right.

“The ideas that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal,” wrote Kramer, who is a Catholic appointed by Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. Gay activist Michael Petrelis reported this week that most of Kramer’s political donations have gone to Republicans.

President Bush renewed his call for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage at a Wednesday news conference.

“Court rulings such as [the ruling in California] strengthen my position,” Bush said. “And as a matter of fact, the court rulings are verifying why I took the position I took. And that is, I don’t believe judges ought to be deciding this issue... and I think the best way to do so is through the constitutional process.”

Kramer’s opinion applied to several cases that had been consolidated in order to answer their common challenge to the state’s marriage law.

The cases, known collectively as Woo, et al v. Lockyer, et al were brought by Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the ACLU on behalf of same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses, and the gay rights groups Our Families Coalition and Equality California.

In 2000, California voters passed Prop. 22, which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The initiative passed with 61 percent support.

Four years later, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom determined that the California Constitution’s guarantees of equality and due process required him to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. On Feb. 12, 2004, San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses in defiance of Prop 22. More than 4,000 marriage licenses were granted to same-sex couples before the California Supreme Court ruled on Aug. 12, 2004 that San Francisco did not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The California Supreme Court nullified the same-sex marriages but did not rule on the constitutionality of denying marriage to same-sex couples.

“Today’s decision is a landmark for the law and an important development for the entire nation,” stated ACLU Attorney Christine Sun. “With plain but compelling logic, the judge has shown us all why in a nation committed to fairness, gays and lesbians must not be shut out of marriage. But this decision is most important to the thousands of same-sex couples who desperately need the protection that marriage gives, and who deserve the dignity it brings.”

“It was a giant step forward for our families,” said Eddie Gutierrez, communications director for Equality California, which joined the suit as a group that advocates for the rights of lesbians and gays. “[The] ruling affirms that same-sex families deserve equal treatment under the law.”

“There is opposition to this ruling, said Gutierrez, but it is weakened when stories of gay and lesbian people are shared in the press, in the court and all over as they have been recently.”

Representatives from both sides said they expect that the case will be appealed and will go through the appellate process and on to the California Supreme Court.

California politics have been turning toward ballot measures and referendums of late and both social conservatives and gay rights advocates expect an effort to amend California’s Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.

Gutierrez said he believes that a marriage amendment would be defeated in California.

“This is still a road that we can win on,” said Gutierrez, “because California is full of fair-minded people.”

Equality California is working to promote Assembly Bill 19, which was introduced by assemblyman Mark Leno and will be considered in the 2005 legislative session. AB19 would restore the gender-neutral language in the part of California’s Family Code that deals with marriage. Until 1977, California’s marriage law defined marriage as “a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between two persons.” AB 19 would also explicitly recognize civil marriage as a fundamental human right.

While Kramer’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage rights is a clear victory for marriage equality ...