This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Sheet1 Page 1 As gay-rights groups call for marital equality and opponents warn of a public backlash, societal decay and religious conflict, th It shapes up as the most momentous case the court has heard in decades - comparable to the 1981 ruling that guaranteed M The arguments on both sides are weighty. Supporters of same-sex marriage invoke the state's commitment to equality regardless of gender or sexual orientation, the ne In defense of its law, the state cites a cultural tradition far older than statehood, the will of the people as expressed in a 2000 i Beyond those arguments, groups opposing same-sex marriage want the court to justify the state law on moral or scientific gro A ruling is due within 90 days. The case combines four lawsuits - three by nearly two dozen couples who want to marry and the fourth by the city of San Fran The suits rely on the California Constitution, which state courts have long interpreted as more protective of individual rights tha Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco Superior Court echoed that language in March 2005, when he ruled that the state's b But a state appeals court upheld the law in October 2006. In a 2-1 decision, the court rejected Kramer's findings of discriminat Advocates crowd in As the case reached the state's high court, the participants and the arguments multiplied. Conservative religious organizations, including sponsors of the 2000 ballot measure that reinforced the opposite-sex-only mar The coalition of conservative religious groups warned that a ruling against the state law would "fracture the centuries-old cons An opposing assortment of liberal denominations counseled the court against a state endorsement of "the religious orthodoxy The court also heard from hundreds of organizations representing psychologists, anthropologists and other professions, city a Judges and limits Underlying all the arguments is a debate about the proper role of courts in a democracy, particularly on contentious social and The subject was raised with unusual frankness in written arguments by Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, which is leading One unintended and unfortunate consequence of too radical a change is the possibility of backlash, said Deputy Attorney Gen Brown said last week he wasn't asking the court to sacrifice principles to politics, only observing that rulings that "ride roughsh He noted that the court majority swung from liberal to conservative after three of his appointees, including Chief Justice Rose Legitimate concern? Lawyers for San Francisco in the same-sex marriage case nonetheless accused Brown of using scare tactics and of encourag Far worse than any short-term controversy a principled but unpopular decision might engender, an unprincipled, politically bas But Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who is not involved in the case, said concern about public reaction i Sunstein said he favors allowing gays and lesbians to marry, but fears that such a ruling in California "would have undue influ...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 06/04/2008 for the course HIST 101 taught by Professor Hardwicke during the Spring '08 term at Luther Rice.
- Spring '08