California judge rules gays have right to marry

SAN FRANCISCO — A trial-court judge ruled yesterday that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, comparing it to archaic laws that once blocked interracial marriage or promoted "separate but equal" segregation.

If upheld on appeal, the decision could lead to California becoming the second state in the nation — after Massachusetts — in which gay men and lesbians have the same access to marriage licenses as heterosexual couples.

Gay-rights advocates heralded the ruling as a legal milestone.

"Lesbian and gay citizens in California are full individuals entitled to the full dignity of the law for their relationship, for their lives and for their families," said Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.

But she and other advocates agreed with opponents that the ruling probably will move the fight over same-sex marriage from the courts, where most of the California skirmishing has occurred so far, to a new political battlefield.

An effort is under way to amend the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Robert Tyler, legal counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said the ruling also would "essentially put rocket fuel" into the movement to amend the U.S. Constitution.

"The people of America have spoken time and time again," Tyler said, citing California's 2000 ballot initiative that reinforced state laws banning same-sex marriage. "The people will ultimately win one way or another."

During last year's election, 11 states approved ballot measures that banned same-sex marriage.

The ruling comes almost exactly a year after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom challenged state law during a monthlong period in which he authorized the marriage of more than 4,000 gay couples at City Hall.

The California Supreme Court blocked the city from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples and later nullified those unions, saying Newsom's actions violated state laws. But the court did not address the underlying issue of whether the laws against gay marriage violate the California Constitution.

At issue in the current case were a 1977 law that defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman," and a voter-approved measure in 2000 that amended the law to say more explicitly: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

Gay-marriage opponents were particularly upset by the judge's decision to nullify the 2000 proposition, approved by 61 percent of voters.

"The practical effect is the disregard of close to two-thirds of the people of California who used the initiative process to ensure that marriage would remain between one man and one woman," said Tyler, of the Alliance Defense Fund.

It could be months or years before the state actually sanctions same-sex marriage, if ever. The decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeal.

Yesterday's ruling stems from lawsuits brought by the city and a dozen couples challenging the constitutionality of the state ban on same-sex marriage.

In a 27-page ruling, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said the state would have to prove it has a compelling interest in denying gay men and lesbians a right afforded to heterosexuals.

"It appears," he wrote, "that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage ... to opposite-sex partners."

The California ruling comes less than a week after the Washington State Supreme Court heard legal arguments about the state's ban on same-sex marriage. At issue was the state's seven-year-old Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), one of 38 such state laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Eight gay couples in King County challenged the law last March and a second lawsuit was filed later by 11 gay couples from across the state. Two Superior Court judges applied different analyses to declare the law unconstitutional, and a consolidated appeal paved the way for the case to reach the high court.

In the California case, the state Attorney General's Office had argued that the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman was part of "California's traditional understanding" and was deeply rooted in state history. But Kramer noted the same rationale had been used to defend the old ban on interracial marriage.

"Same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before," Kramer wrote.

He also rejected the argument that California's ban did not violate the equal-protection rights of gays because other laws provide gay couples virtually the same rights that are guaranteed in marriage.

Kramer noted that opponents had warned that same-sex marriage could open the door to marriage between siblings or marriage involving children.

But the judge noted the case law upholding same-sex marriage "is not saying that therefore anyone can marry anyone else," and the government would still be able to claim a legitimate interest in blocking incestuous or underage unions.

Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, which is battling same-sex marriage in several states, blasted Kramer's decision as "judicial arrogance."

Opponents said they will appeal the ruling, which probably will move to the state Court of Appeals before advancing to the California Supreme Court.

Material from The Associated Press and The Seattle Times archives is included in this report.