Thus far, the court seems to be focusing on several questions: Whether the state’s domestic partnership laws are good enough as is; whether the Perez v. Sharp 32 Cal.2d 711 (1948), which dealt with interracial marriage, applies to this situation; and whether the court, the Legislature or the populace is the proper arbiter of change on this issue.
Here are some excerpts:
Michael Maroko, of Allred, Maroko and Goldberg, representing gay couple Tyler et al, : “Last I looked, Massachusetts [where gay marriage is legal] is still a state in good standing. It hasn’t fallen into the Atlantic. … I don’t think California is going to fall into the Pacific.”
Attorney Waukeen McCoy, representing gay couple Clinton et al: “We’re not redefining marriage. … The right that we’re talking about here is the right to marriage. You can put words before it, genderless, same-sex, interracial … this court has said marriage is a fundamental righ that individuals have the right to choose their fundamental partners.”
Justice Joyce Kennard: “In Perez v. Sharp, the issue pertained to interracial marriage and not marriages between people of the same sex.”
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar: “In Perez, as has often been referenced, … before the court at that time was interracial marriage, and cases are not resolutions for issues not before them.”
More updates to come…
— Jessie Seyfer