Jump to content

Same-sex marriage in California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xrlq (talk | contribs) at 22:15, 8 January 2007 (→‎Legality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of the LGBT rights series
Marriage

Recognized

Civil unions and
registered partnerships
Minimal recognition
See also
Notes
  1. KoN: Performed in the Netherlands proper, including the Caribbean Netherlands. Registered in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten in such cases, but the rights of marriage are not guaranteed.
  2. NZ: Neither performed nor recognized in Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands.
  3. UK: Neither performed nor recognized in six British Overseas Territories.
  4. US: Neither performed nor recognized in some tribal nations. Recognized but not performed in several other tribal nations and American Samoa.
  5. Israel: Registered foreign marriages confer all marriage rights. Domestic common-law marriages confer most rights of marriage. Domestic civil marriage recognized by some cities.
  6. EU: The Coman v. Romania ruling of the European Court of Justice obliges the state to provide residency rights for the foreign spouses of EU citizens. Some member states, including Romania, do not follow the ruling.
  7. Cambodia: Recognition of a "declaration of family relationship", which may be useful in matters such as housing, but they are not legally binding.
  8. China: Guardianship agreements, conferring some limited legal benefits, including decisions about medical and personal care.
  9. HK: Inheritance, guardianship rights, and residency rights for foreign spouses of legal residents.
  10. India: Courts have recognised guru–shishya, nata pratha or maitri karar–type contractual relationships, but they are not legally binding.
  11. Japan: Some cities and prefectures issue partnership certificates, but they are not legally binding.
  12. Namibia: Marriages conducted abroad between a Namibian national and a foreign spouse recognized for residency rights.
  13. Romania: Hospital visitation rights through a "legal representative" status.
* Not yet in effect
LGBT portal

Determining the status of same sex marriage in California has been an intense political battle for at least the last decade. As California is known for its large gay communities and generally liberal political climate, the issue continues to remain a prominent topic of debate.

Currently, the state of California permits domestic-partner registration that is similar to civil unions found in other states.[1] This grants "same-sex couples all state-level rights and obligations of marriage—in areas such as inheritance, income tax, insurance and hospital visitation" but does not apply to "federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states."[2]

California State Court Challenges

California courts are considering challenges to the constitutionality of laws prohibiting same-sex marriage in the state. Pending final resolution, the California Supreme Court has forbidden the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1]

Trial court decision

In February 2004, litigants filed five civil lawsuits in San Francisco Superior Court and one case in Los Angeles Superior Court. The parties included individuals and organizations opposed to same-sex marriage who sought to stop San Francisco from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The City and County of San Francisco and numerous individuals sued the state of California seeking to overturn existing state law that limited marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Eventually, all six cases were coordinated (In re Marriage Cases) and assigned to San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. On March 14, 2005, Judge Kramer ruled that California statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional.[2] The court held:

  • There was no rational connection between forbidding same-sex marriage and any legitimate state interest.
  • The opposite-sex requirements impermissibly discriminated based on gender.

Appellate court decision

The state and organizations opposed to same-sex marriage appealed. The First District Court of Appeal held extended oral argument on the cases on July 10, 2006, before a three-judge panel. In a 2-to-1 decision, the appellate court overturned the lower court.[3] Writing for the majority, Presiding Judge William R. McGuiness found:

  • The marriage statutes do not discriminate based on gender.
  • The state’s interests in “preserving the traditional definition of marriage” and “carrying out the expressed wishes of a majority of Californians” (see Proposition 22) were sufficient to preserve the existing law.
  • Challenges from the two groups opposed to same-sex marriage had to be dismissed because they lacked standing in any real controversy on which the court could rule.

In a sharply worded dissent, Judge J. Anthony Kline described the court’s reasoning as “circular.” He wrote that the majority’s indifference to the reasons why marriage is a fundamental right unintentionally “diminish the humanity of the lesbians and gay men whose rights are defeated.” Both judges in the majority commented at length on Judge Kline’s dissent.

California Supreme Court review

In November 2006, several parties petitioned the Supreme Court of California to review the decision.[4] Despite prevailing in the Court of Appeal, attorney general Bill Lockyer urged the Supreme Court to take up the case.[5] In December 2006, the Supreme Court voted unanimously to review all six cases.[6] The court has not yet calendared the matter for oral argument.

San Francisco marriages, February 12 to August 12, 2004

From February 12 to March 11, under the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, officials of the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 4,000 same-sex couples, in apparent defiance of state law. During the month that licenses were issued, couples travelled from all over the United States and from other countries to be married. On August 12, citing the mayor's lack of authority to bypass state law, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were void.

Same-sex couples gather at San Francisco City Hall during Valentine's Day weekend 2004 to apply for marriage licenses.

Legality

City officials claimed that although the marriages were prohibited by state law, the state law was invalidated by the Equal protection clause. The mayor echoed this view, permitting the marriages because he believed the state law was unconstitutional. However, legislators and groups opposing same-sex marriages quickly reacted, filing a suit and requesting a court order to prevent the city from performing the ceremonies. Additionally, the California state agency that records marriages stated that altered forms, including any marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples, would not be registered. The legal validity of the marriages was tested in the courts, and the marriages were ultimately voided by the state Supreme Court.

The line of same-sex couples applying for marriage licenses stretches for blocks around San Francisco's City Hall in February 2004.

During the brief time same-sex marriages were being performed, David J. Knight, the son of State Senator William "Pete" Knight, who authored California Proposition 22 (2000) (preventing California from recognizing gay marriages), married Joseph J. Lazzaro, his partner of 10 years, on March 9. [7]

Officials in Berkeley and Oakland, in nearby Alameda County, expressed interest in joining San Francisco, but were unable to do so because marriage licenses are handled at a county, rather than at a city, level. San Francisco was able to issue its own licenses because San Francisco is both a city and a county.

Timeline

February 12: Recently-elected Mayor Gavin Newsom and other city officials begin issuing marriage licenses in San Francisco, California. Lesbian activists Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin were the first same sex couple to be married. The event was intended to undercut a legal challenge planned by a conservative group, Campaign for California Families.

March 9: The San Jose City Council, by a vote of 8-1, agrees to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions for city employees.

March 11: The Supreme Court of California, headquartered in San Francisco, issues a stay ordering the County of San Francisco to stop performing same-sex marriages pending court review on the legality of the matter. Mayor Newsom agrees to abide by the order.

The ruling also did not alter a scheduled March 29 San Francisco Superior Court hearing before Judge Ronald Quidachay in which the Campaign for California Families (CCF) and the Alliance Defense Fund are claiming that San Francisco's granting of same-sex marriage licenses was illegal. Quidachay later delayed the hearing pending state supreme court action.

May 25: The state Supreme Court holds hearings on the legality of the marriages. San Francisco had wanted its case heard first by lower courts, before juries, rather than by the state Supreme Court. However, the court suggested that San Francisco could file its own suit against the state, and the city launched such a suit that afternoon.

August 12: The state Supreme Court releases its decision, exactly six months after the first same-sex marriages were performed in San Francisco. The court rules unanimously that the City and County of San Francisco exceeded its authority and violated state law by issuing the marriage licenses. In a 5-2 decision, the court also declares all same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco to be void.

Statistics

Marriage licenses were issued to 4,037 same-sex couples before the state Supreme Court issued its stay. During the same period, 103 opposite-sex marriage licenses were issued from the city hall.

Of those same-sex marriage licenses issued, 82 couples either decided not to go through with a marriage or failed to register their marriage with the county before the state supreme court stay was issued, meaning 3,955 completed same-sex marriages were registered in the county.

By reviewing first names of applicants, San Francisco officials estimated that 57 percent of the same-sex married couples were women. Demographic information gleaned from the registered licenses also shows the newlywed same-sex couples were older and better educated than the average American household. More than 74 percent were over age 35 while 69 percent had at least one college degree.

Example of marriage license issued in San Francisco.

According to figures released March 18 by San Francisco County Assessor Mabel Teng, although 91.4 percent of the licenses were granted to couples living in California, other couples came from every state in the United States except for Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Of the other states, the top five states represented included 32 couples each from Washington and Oregon, 24 from Nevada, 20 from New York and 16 from Florida. International same-sex couples, 17 in all, came from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand and the United Kingdom.

Bills in the state legislature

When the new session opened in the California legislature, a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was expected to top the legislative agenda. The bill was drafted by Assemblyman Mark Leno in December 2004 and enjoyed the support of new Speaker Fabian Núñez. (Leno had introduced a similar bill in the prior session, but it died in committee. [8])

On September 2, 2005, the California Senate approved the bill 21-15 and on September 6, the California State Assembly followed suit with a vote of 41-35, making California's legislature the first in the nation to approve a same-sex marriage bill without court pressure. The next day, September 7, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger indicated he would veto the bill citing Proposition 22, which had passed with the approval of 61% of voters five years before. Prop 22 prevents the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states. The Legislature avoided physically delivering the bill to the Governor for over two weeks, during which time advocacy groups urged Schwarzenegger to change his mind. Ultimately, the bill was delivered on September 23 and vetoed on September 29, 2005 [9]. Schwarzenegger stated he believed that same-sex marriage should be settled by the courts or another vote by the people via a statewide referendum. He claimed the legislature's bill simply "complicated" the issue, since the constitutional legitimacy of the 2000 Proposition had not yet been determined. [10]

Shortly after the newly elected Assembly was sworn in, December 4, 2006, Leno resubmitted the bill. [11]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ^ Nullis, Clare “S. Africa first to legalize gay marriage.” The Associated Press. 2006.
  2. ^ “Recognize Gay Couples, Say 60% of Americans.” Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research. November 15, 2006

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_California&oldid=99416822"