Gay-marriage ruling doesn't impact Utah

Robert Tyler, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, said the group would appeal. And Lockyer has said in the past that he expected the matter eventually would have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints played an active role in the passage of the 2000 amendment, known as "Prop. 22," that defined marriage in California. The church's area presidency in California wrote a letter seeking support for the initiative that was read from the pulpit to some 740,000 members. Church officials maintained they had a constitutional right to speak out on moral issues and that their members were free to act and vote their own conscience.

Speaking on the California initiative, President Gordon B. Hinckley told LDS Church members during the church's October 1999 general conference that the faith had a moral obligation to take a stand.

"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right," President Hinckley said at the time. "This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality."

Nearly 4,000 gay couples got married last winter after Newsom instructed the city to issue them licenses. The California Supreme Court later declared those marriages void, saying the mayor overstepped his authority.

But the court did not address the underlying issue of whether the law against gay marriage violates the California Constitution.

Two bills now before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

"It will undoubtedly be a political battle to get that kind of protection," Stewart said. "If California had something like Amendment 3 like we have here, the trial court could not rule as it did. It shows the wisdom of Amendment 3 and the need for similar amendments in the state constitution of every state."

The decision is the latest development in a national debate that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional.

In the wake of the Massachusetts ruling, gay-rights advocates filed lawsuits seeking to strike down traditional marriage laws in several other states. Opponents responded by proposing state and federal constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Around the country, Kramer is the fourth trial-court judge in recent months to decide that the right to marry and its benefits must be extended to same-sex couples.

Two Washington state judges, ruling last summer in separate cases, held that prohibiting same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution, and on Feb. 4, a New York City judge ruled in favor of five gay couples who had been denied marriage licenses.

Just as many judges have gone the other way in recent months, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays from marrying violates their civil rights.

California has the highest percentage of same-sex partners in the nation, and its Legislature has gone further than any other in providing gay couples the benefits of marriage without being forced to do so by court order.

---

E-mail: ldethman@desnews.com