California's top court seems split on gay marriage By Adam Tanner
Tue Mar 4, 6:00 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The California Supreme Court appeared divided on
Tuesday over whether to allow gay marriage during nearly four hours of oral
arguments on the contentious issue that could impact gay rights nationwide.

Several of the seven judges asked whether the state legislature might
better decide whether matrimony should be limited to a man and a woman,
while others pointed to how the same court ended the state ban on marriages
between blacks and whites after World War Two.

"I think it's going to be a divided opinion but I wouldn't want to predict
who will win," Christopher Krueger, a lawyer representing the state
attorney general who presented arguments before the judges, told Reuters.

The hearing brought into focus the highest-profile U.S. fight over gay
rights in recent years and the outcome could influence legislation and
lawsuits in other states on what has been a hot-button issue in recent
election campaigns.

"California's a bellwether state. What happens here, blows east," Larry
Bowler, a retired deputy sheriff from Sacramento who opposes gay marriage,
said outside the courthouse.

Expecting heated disagreement over a case in which constitutional questions
are at stake, the state's top court scheduled a three-hour session, making
a rare exception to its one-hour limit on oral arguments. But the marathon
hearing lasted three hours and 40 minutes, and several court officials said
it was the longest such session they could remember.

"Same-sex couples come here today to praise marriage, not to bury it," said
Shannon Minter, a lawyer for clients who favor gay marriage.

NINETY DAYS TO DECIDE

The top court now has 90 days to issue an opinion, with a decision before
May unlikely. Six of the judges were appointed by Republican governors and
one by a Democrat and the panel is considered politically moderate.

Judge Joyce Kennard summed up the uncertainly about the outcome when she to
ld a lawyer: "You don't know where we are going."

Several judges pointed out that California already extends registered
same-sex partners essentially the same benefits as married couples.
"Doesn't this really boil down to the use of the M word, marriage?" asked
Justice Carlos Moreno.

"That symbol has deep meaning for both sides of the case," said Therese
Stewart, a lawyer representing San Francisco.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom forced the gay marriage issue by suddenly
issuing gay marriage licenses in February 2004 and allowing the nuptials in
City Hall -- across the street from the California Supreme Court's
chambers.

More than 4,000 homosexual couples took Newsom up on the offer, before a
court halted the process.

Some judges asked on Tuesday how the state could bar polygamy or underage
or immediate family member marriages, but not same-sex marriages.

Gay marriage supporters won an initial battle in the case when a Superior
Court judge ruled in their favor in 2005. The following year a state
appeals court judge overruled that decision and backed existing state law.

Californians in 2000 approved a ballot measure defining marriage as the
union of man and woman. But domestic partnership legislation as of 2005
gave registered gay couples many of the same privileges enjoyed by married
couples.

California's legislature has voted twice since 2005 to allow gay marriages,
but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, vetoed the bills, saying
voters or the courts should decide the issue.

More than half of U.S. states have passed amendments barring same-sex
marriage, and President George W. Bush has proposed a U.S constitutional
amendment to do so.

State supreme courts in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Vermont have ruled
against limiting the benefits of marriage to a man and a woman.
Massachusetts has since became the only U.S. state to allow gay marriage,
and New Jersey and Vermont passed civil union laws similar to those in
California.

(Editing by Phil Barbara)