San Francisco Bay Guardian News

Lockyer shouldn't appeal

JUDGE RICHARD A . Kramer issued a decision March 14 that will stand as one of the landmarks in the battle for same-sex marriage. His clear, cogent, and powerfully written ruling shredded the arguments of both right-wing antigay zealots and Attorney General Bill Lockyer and affirmed in the strongest possible terms that the state of California cannot discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry.

While everyone agrees that the case will wind up in the state Supreme Court, Lockyer, on behalf of California, should decline to appeal. That would remove the state as a player, both legally and symbolically, and leave it to the right-wingers to mount the rest of the legal campaign.

Kramer's decision is a huge victory for Mayor Gavin Newsom, and it effectively (though not legally) affirms Newsom's original argument that the law against same-sex marriage is so patently unconstitutional that he had an obligation not to obey it. The 27-page opinion leaves no room for doubt: the right to marry is fundamental, Kramer wrote, and the state would have to meet the highest possible legal test to prove it had a compelling interest in denying that right to same-sex couples. That interest, he concluded, simply doesn't exist.

There's no doubt that the conservative religious groups involved in the case will appeal, and eventually the Supreme Court will weigh in, as it should. But there's no reason the attorney general needs to help the bigots make their case.

Lockyer's chief argument – that the state's domestic partnership laws are so close to marriage that there's no need for further state recognition – may give him some political wiggle room, but it flies in the face of Brown v. Board of Education, which concluded, famously, that "separate but equal" treatment of some groups under the law will by definition never be equal. It's a bogus, specious claim, and there's no reason for Lockyer to push it any further. The Democrats, whose support Lockyer needs in his primary run for governor, should make it clear to him that this is a political as well as legal battle – and he has to let his constituents know whose side he's on.

Lockyer shouldn't appeal JUDGE RICHARD A . Kramer issued a decision March 14 that will stand as one of the landmarks in the battle for same-sex marriage. His clear, cogent, and powerfully written ruling shredded the arguments of both right-wing antigay zealots and Attorney General Bill Lockyer and affirmed in the strongest possible terms that the state of California cannot discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry. While everyone agrees that the case will wind up in the state Supreme Court, Lockyer, on behalf of California, should decline to appeal. That would remove the state as a player, both legally and symbolically, and leave it to the right-wingers to mount the rest of the legal campaign. Kramer's decision is a huge victory for Mayor Gavin Newsom, and it effectively (though not legally) affirms Newsom's original argument that the law against same-sex marriage is so patently unconstitutional that he had an obligation not to obey it. The 27-page opinion leaves no room for doubt: the right to marry is fundamental, Kramer wrote, and the state would have to meet the highest possible legal test to prove it had a compelling interest in denying that right to same-sex couples. That interest, he concluded, simply doesn't exist. There's no doubt that the conservative religious groups involved in the case will appeal, and eventually the Supreme Court will weigh in, as it should. But there's no reason the attorney general needs to help the bigots make their case. Lockyer's chief argument – that the state's domestic partnership laws are so close to marriage that there's no need for further state recognition – may give him some political wiggle room, but it flies in the face of Brown v. Board of Education, which concluded, famously, that "separate but equal" treatment of some groups under the law will by definition never be equal. It's a bogus, specious claim, and there's no reason for Lockyer to push it any further. The Democrats, whose support Lockyer needs in his primary run for governor, should make it clear to him that this is a political as well as legal battle – and he has to let his constituents know whose side he's on.