California | Gay Marriage | News

California Supreme Court to Hear Same-Sex Marriage Arguments

Three hours of arguments have been scheduled for March 4th:

California"The court then has 90 days to rule. The six consolidated cases being heard together challenges the current, voter-approved state law that limits marriage to opposite-sex couples. The Supreme Court has banned same-sex marriages in the state until it decides the issue."

In early December, Chief Justice Ronald George told the AP that the same-sex marriage case currently before the California Supreme Court is taking so long because the court has received more "friend of the court" briefs "than any other case in recent memory."

"Friend of the Court" Briefs Delay California Gay Marriage Case [tr]
San Diego Mayor Says Daughter is Gay, Reverses Marriage Position [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. It should be more like more haters of gays to the court since most are 110% against gay marriage and letting the justices know it. The whole judical system in this country needs a major overhaul to make sure all citizens get fair treatment under the law, and, not just those who can be called "friends' of the court.

    Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 6, 2008 3:25:30 PM

  2. actually, the case is not just challenging the section 308.5 of the family code (which was added by prop 22 and relates to recognizing out of state marriages), but also section 300, which was enacted by the legislature.

    and, there were over 30 amicus briefs in support of same-sex marriage, so it wasn't exactly one-sided.

    Posted by: matteo | Feb 6, 2008 3:56:17 PM

  3. I love how this seems to come up every four years lately to help muck up the chances of a Dem ever taking the White House again. Just wonderful.

    Posted by: Charles | Feb 6, 2008 4:08:49 PM

  4. There are 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat on the California Supreme Court. And this is a court that has already ruled against same-sex marriage once in 2004. Like Arnold, they seem perfectly happy with the registered domestic partnership status quo.

    Survey says...DOA.

    Posted by: John | Feb 6, 2008 5:22:37 PM

  5. John,

    You may be right, but let's wait for the actual ruling shall we. BTW, the 2004 decision was strickly about whether Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco (city and county) had the authority to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of state law. Naturally, they ruled that he did not have that authority. That is all they ruled on, not on the issue of same-sex marriage per se. Nuance.

    Posted by: MBSF | Feb 6, 2008 6:26:59 PM

  6. Well, now they claim they will have a ruling by June, just in time to give the GOP more ammunition to win the election in November.

    Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 6, 2008 7:27:48 PM

  7. Which is why Arnold, Hillary, and Obama are all probably praying for the status-quo.

    The Governator has thus far skillfully avoided any questions about his personal views regarding same-sex marriage, only basing his vetoes on the fact that he prefers a referendum or court order over legislation. And we all know what the Democrats think.

    Posted by: John | Feb 6, 2008 9:18:54 PM

  8. I hope things turn out bright. March 4th is my birthday. You can guess what I'll be wishing for. (I live in California btw)

    Posted by: Victor | Feb 6, 2008 9:33:13 PM

  9. Massachusetts 4-3 landmark decision was made by a court of SIX Republicans and ONE (!!!) Democrat. And no, the Democrat was NOT the Chief Justice, who penned (!!) the decision.

    Posted by: Rafael | Feb 6, 2008 11:44:40 PM

  10. Same sex couiples can obtain virtually all the benefits that married couples possess through a civil union or domestic partnership law. There is no need for the court to invoke marriage as the be-all, end-all for same sex couples.

    Posted by: NowItMatters | Feb 7, 2008 9:48:37 AM


    Can you give me an example (past, present or future) where you would have supported or would support a law that granted a separate but equal status for another minority?

    The SCOTUS has ruled that "separate but equal" is NEVER equal. Even you said "couples can obtain VIRTUALLY all the benefits..." Virtually equal is not equal.

    Having said that I will confess that the timing of this is troubling. It seems like deja vue all over again. I can't imagine that the timing of is isn't being orchestrated for nefarious partisan political purposes. I felt the same way about the timing of the Mass ruling.

    Posted by: ZEKE | Feb 7, 2008 3:24:01 PM

Post a comment


« «News: Vanity Fair, Matt Foreman, AIDS Self-Medication, Eric Dane« «