Monday’s Superior Court decision in San Francisco that
overturned state laws against same-sex marriage could have a strong
impact on similar court cases heard in other states, legal experts
say.
According to the ruling, two state laws that prohibit same-sex
marriage “cannot be justified simply because such
constitutional violation has become traditional,” San
Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer wrote.
Supporters of same-sex marriage have hailed the decision as a step
forward, while opponents have vowed to appeal.
The decision may have a powerful influence on other state courts
simply because of California’s size. California has 12
percent of the country’s population and about 15 percent of
the country’s co-habiting same-sex couples, said David B.
Cruz, USC professor of law. Should other state judges hear cases
similar to San Francisco’s, such statistics may weigh heavily
on their minds.
“There are large numbers of people affected by
this,” Cruz said.
“The courts that have been dealing with challenges like
this have taken to citing decisions from other jurisdictions as
precedents, though they’re not binding,” Cruz
added.
William Rubenstein, a UCLA professor of law, agreed.
“It’s an important decision because California is
such a big state, and the decision will be persuasive to judges in
other states,” said Rubenstein, who is also the director of
the Williams Project, a think tank on sexual orientation law.
The fact that Kramer was appointed to his position by former
Republican Gov. Pete Wilson may also give the ruling “an edge
of credibility,” Cruz said.
Only one state ““ Massachusetts ““ has legalized
same-sex marriages. Trial courts in New York, Washington and Oregon
have recently ruled in favor of same-sex marriages.
Kramer’s decision would annul a state law that defines
marriage as between a man and a woman, and Proposition 22, a
voter-approved initiative that passed in 2000 which prevents the
state from recognizing same-sex couples who were married in other
states.
Kramer granted his decision a stay of 60 days to allow opponents
time to appeal it. If it is appealed, the California Court of
Appeals will hear the case. Analysts say that regardless of what
decision the court of appeals reaches, their ruling will also
likely be appealed and taken up by the California Supreme
Court.
The state Supreme Court has the option of bypassing the court of
appeals and hearing the case right away, but both Cruz and Kramer
said such a scenario is unlikely.
If the case does eventually go to the supreme court, Cruz said
it is possible Kramer’s decision will be upheld.
“They have a very strong legal case on their side, and the
precedents are very favorable,” he said.
But Rubenstein declined to predict what outcome could arise from
a possible supreme court hearing.
“When it gets to the California Supreme Court, it will be
an open question all over again, and it will be interesting to see
what they will do,” he said. “It’s hard to
predict at this point.”