Judge Rules "No Rational Basis Exists" Opposing Gay Marriage

Gay and lesbian couples in California have a constitutional right to marry, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled Monday.

The ruling by Judge Richard Kramer is just the first step in a case that is headed for the state Supreme Court, probably sometime next year. But it marks the first time that a California judge has declared unconstitutional the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional _ a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the way for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and said there appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.

In S.F., a Celebration for a 'Step Forward'
by Maria L. LaGanga and Nicholas Shields, L.A. Times Staff Writers

SAN FRANCISCO — Trolley drivers on this city's F Line rang their bells as a minister in a purple shirt and ecclesiastical collar, a 16-year-old girl and her two lesbian mothers, and 150 other supporters of same-sex marriage celebrated a court decision that California was violating its Constitution by not allowing gays to marry.

Laughing and giggling, many sang, "Going to the chapel and we're going to get married."

Earlier, outside the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center here, one of the attorneys who helped write the law that prompted thousands of gay marriages in this city in 2004 before the courts ordered a halt, spoke of Monday's legal victory.

"We took a tremendous step forward today for justice and equality in California," said City Atty. Dennis Herrera. "California's family values are going to stand for all families. But let's not rest on our laurels. There will be a political battle."

Monday was a day for modest celebration, reflection and girding for the next fight.

Because few observers had been willing to wager on the outcome of the case, few supporters were ready to celebrate a victory. Thus, impromptu and often joyfully disorganized parties broke out in San Francisco and gay communities across the nation.

Following a presidential campaign that raised gay marriage as an issue — with the winner, President Bush, supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage — many celebrants took heart in Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer's political affiliation.

"I do think that it's particularly telling and great that it was a Republican judge," West Hollywood Mayor Pro Tem Abbe Land told several dozen people celebrating at City Hall. "It's not about Democrats. It's not about Republicans. It's about people who love each other."

At San Francisco's gay and lesbian center, a white placard in the lobby declared: "Judge Rules: Same-Sex Marriage in California Is Constitutional!!"

"It re-energizes people," the center's president, Thom Lynch, said of the ruling. "It helps people understand — yes, this is a long battle, but there are victories along the way."

In Los Angeles, attorney Gloria Allred, representing longtime partners Diane Olson and Robin Tyler, said the ruling was a just step in the right direction.

"We are not going to accept civil unions," said Olson, 62. "That is the back of the bus. We want the front of the bus. We want the right to get married."

Couples: 'One step in a long road to equality'
Rona Marech, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer

Champagne was chilled, celebratory e-mails went out, and same-sex marriage advocates were all grins Monday.

Even though a San Francisco judge's ruling that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry is far from the last word on the subject, supporters counted it as an unadulterated triumph after a year of turmoil.

"I'm elated, I'm grateful, I'm honored that California is taking the stance behind all Americans' civil rights," said Beverly Senkowski, who married her partner, Jacqueline Frank, at San Francisco City Hall last winter. "I know this is one step in a long road to equality, but it's a good step, it's a proud step, and I'm just really excited today that our judicial system is standing up for the rights that our government seems to have forgotten."

All around the state -- at a Liberty Bell replica in Bakersfield, at the courthouse in Ukiah (Mendocino County), in Modesto, Palm Springs and Stockton -- supporters of same-sex marriage held impromptu rallies Monday night. In San Francisco, several hundred people gathered in the Castro and marched down Market Street to City Hall to cheer Mayor Gavin Newsom, who set in motion the events that led to Monday's ruling when he told the city in February 2004 to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

There's going to be a political battle ahead, City Attorney Dennis Herrera told the crowd, but "we have to educate people that they have absolutely nothing to fear when it comes to protecting civil rights for all Californians."

Jeanne Rizzo, 58, a plaintiff in the case, was hiking with her 25-year-old son in Marin when she heard that Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer had struck down the state law banning same-sex marriage. They changed and rushed to City Hall for a news conference, then headed to the Breast Cancer Fund, where Rizzo is the executive director. They arrived to cheers and hugs. The office assistant, Myrtle Pearson, burst into tears.

"I know what discrimination is firsthand," said Pearson, 65, who is African American and grew up in the segregated South. "I'm so happy for them."

Many of Rizzo's colleagues, including Pearson, were with her in City Hall on March 11, 2004, the day the marriages were halted and she and her partner, Pali Cooper, were turned away.

"This is fabulous. It just allows us to stand in this place of our dignity," Rizzo said. "(Kramer's ruling) was done in such a simple, direct way, to just say it's unconstitutional, period. Simple as that. You can't discriminate. That feels extremely validating for all of us."

Some of those celebrating the decision said they had hoped and prayed the decision would go their way, but the ruling still had taken them by surprise.

"I thought we would lose, actually," said Donna Douglas-Weddell, who married her partner, Whitney Douglas-Weddell, in February. "I'm 58 years old, and I've been on the front lines for so many years. We've lost so many battles that I'm pessimistic at times. But things are looking better."

The phone, she said, was ringing all day. Some people wanted to know if it meant she was married again (it doesn't); others just wanted to gush.

Douglas-Weddell lives in Bakersfield -- a place she describes as the Bible Belt of California. She expected to hear some nasty comments at the hospital where she works as a nurse, but colleagues mostly offered encouragement and support.

"I think their eyes are opening some," she said. "I like that."

The ruling was also a hot topic outside the state.

"It's exciting to watch the government catch up to the trend state by state," said Maryann Martindale, who traveled from Utah last year to marry her partner at City Hall. If California legalizes same-sex marriage, she would head right back, she said.

"Absolutely, I'd go again, even if there's very little chance of it being recognized here in Utah," she said.

The ruling didn't come fast enough for Marvin Burrows. His partner of 50 years, William Swenor, died last week. He cannot collect Swenor's Social Security payments, a federal benefit that is extended only to the survivors in married, heterosexual couples. Burrows said he had also been denied the right to Swenor's pension.

"With Bill passing, I've been crying a lot," Burrows said. "But today the tears are tears of joy. It's too late for Bill and me, but it's not too late for the rest of the world."