for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-
sex partners," Kramer wrote.
Mar 14, 3:17 PM EST
Judge finds California's marriage law unconstitutional
By LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that California can no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman, a legal milestone that if upheld on appeal would pave the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.
In an opinion that had been awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the unconstitutional denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians and their right to marry.
Advertisement
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.
Kramer's decision came in a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn California's statutory ban on gay marriage. They were brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March, after the California Supreme Court halted the four-week marriage spree Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.
It could be months or years, however, before the state actually sanctions same-sex marriage, if it sanctions the unions at all. Two legal groups representing religious conservatives joined with California's attorney general in defending the existing laws.
Robert Tyler, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said the group would appeal Kramer's ruling.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.
"rational" completely relative to a bleeding heart wussy liberal...
Stunning that one judge can overrule the people of California.
If the gender of the couple doesn't matter, should the number? What about polygamists?
If the gender of the couple doesn't matter, should the number? What about polygamists?
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
Our government is run by the Constitution. The constitution is how the people tell the governmen how to run it and the parameters of the laws it can pass with the peoples will.
Prop 22 in Calif was a change to the Constitution, not a law to be ruled on my the courts, it is actually the opposite. We told the government how to operate and what laws they can pass.
The state can and should ignore this judges ruling.
It is his 'opinion' and not an 'edict', that would force the state to abandon it's own laws.
Judge's, in these types of cases, have no force of imposition.
Judge Kramer should have recuse himself. All Judges in SF are prohibited from supporting the Boy Scouts due to he scout's perceived intolerance and discrimination against gays. A major conflict of interest on his part.
One stinking leftist judge. One stinking ACLU'er.
Kramer? When did he leave NYC and move to the left coast? I just knew there was something odd about that guy.
Pitiful. Goodbye "We the people." We have no say any longer.
What a moron.
Well, he's right that tradition isn't much of a legal reason, or even a logical one. Was that the argument that was used by opponents of gay marriage?
Since the state got involved in marriage, it has done nothing but erode the sanctity of the institution. This is because the state can never create -- it can only destroy. Time to keep them as far away from the institution of marriage as possible.
I don't know why heterosexuals should be all enthusiastic about maintaining their status of being the only ones who must to knuckle under to the petty authority of the state to register who they are going to spend their time with. It is simply none of the state's business, and it never has been. It is just societal inertia that makes the state's definition of marriage into the definition of marriage.
Here's a chink in the pervert armor, and a chance for the other 90% to speak up.
Superior Court judges ARE subject to "no confidence" votes!
Nothing except a law passed by 2/3 of California voters.
Give an idiot a robe and they soon think they own the place.
Impeach this piece of sh*t "judge" who makes up the law as he goes along.
What is so irritating about yet another judge playing God IS that the people of California have already spoken regarding this subject---
they already voted to have marriage be between and man and a woman and this judge has decided that because of California's constitution's clause, the people's vote doesn't count===
So, I truly think that the only choice is for Bush to really push for a National Constitutional Amendment or the 9th circuit WILL ultimately get this case---
Judge Napalitano on Fox said it would go to the Cal. Supremes, but who wants to bet what THEY will decide?