Marriage ruling raises questions

Electoral candidates responded predictably to the California Supreme Court's decision Thursday to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage, with the controversial issue raising deeper questions for churches and businesses.

The 4-3 ruling paves the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

Supporters of the decision were "elated," though it was unclear how soon same-sex couples could apply for marriage licenses in individual counties -including Nevada County - or how long their right to marry would last.

Republicans campaigning in western Nevada County, already battling over who is most conservative, roundly repudiated the ruling, saying it ignores the will of voters.

Many called on voters to rally behind an effort to change the state constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. In 2000, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 22, refining the definition in state law.

"Today's decision not only overturns the will of the vast majority of Californians, but it is an affront to the very values that unite us as Americans," said congressional candidate Doug Ose, of the Sacramento area. "I am disappointed that a handful of activist judges have decided to play politics with an issue that is so important to families."

Tom McClintock, a state senator from Southern California running against Ose, called the ruling "a travesty"

"Marriage is an institution that exists in nature and ultimately is beyond the power of any government or court to redefine," McClintock said. "It is the union of a man and a woman to summon new life into the world. ... Our marriage laws are solely crafted to support this singular relationship and are inapplicable to any other partnership."

McClintock also noted Ose voted against the federal Marriage Protection Act in July 2004 while a congressman representing Sacramento suburbs.

Republican candidates for the 3rd District California Assembly seat echoed state party calls to support the amendment.

Sue Horne, a Nevada County supervisor, called the ruling "an abomination to California families."

Horne emphasized her role in helping to found a local crisis pregnancy center and her activity in her church. "The court has no right to redefine this sacred institution," she added. "I will fight to overturn this faulty decision."

Dan Logue, a Yuba County Republican, agreed.

"This is a revolutionary decision that must be reversed by any legal means necessary," Logue said. "If elected to the State Assembly, I will move to pass a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman."



Challenges ahead

The court's rulings typically become final in 30 days, after which same-sex couples could start taking out marriage licenses.

But leaders of the conservative Alliance Defense Fund said they would ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election. The group hopes to add California to the list of 26 states that have approved constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage.

Meanwhile, supporters of a constitutional amendment in California are awaiting the validation of more than 1 million signatures to put the measure on the November ballot.

"We have a lot of work ahead of us," said Christine Allen, a longtime Nevada County resident and lesbian who recently moved to Sacramento, where she is the national leadership coordinator for Marriage Equality USA. The national organization one of the plaintiffs to the lawsuit heard by the court.

Allen and her partner have been together for 23 years and through many types of legally recognized union, including a February 2004 marriage in San Francisco when that city gave marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The marriages were later invalidated.

"The decision is a historic ruling. I'm proud of California," Allen said. "No matter what happens with this initiative (for a constitutional amendment), it will have a profound effect in the marriage equality fight."

She expected marriage licenses to be available in Sacramento County in about 30 days, and she would apply for one - again, Allen said. She and her partner have applied in Nevada County on every Valentine's Day for the past three years.

"We're going to be the most married people in the world," she laughed.



Church and business questions

The ruling implies greater costs for businesses if they have to provide insurance benefits for same-sex partners of employees. Some companies already provide benefits for domestic partners.

Church leaders also questioned how the ruling would affect the distinction between civil and religious authority.

Ministers are authorized by the state of California to perform marriages, the Rev. Richard Johnson, of Peace Lutheran Church in Grass Valley said.

"Will (pastors) get in trouble from the state if they decline to marry people? Will they get in trouble with their congregations if they do?" Johnson pondered.

While fundamentalist churches flatly reject homosexuality on the basis of scripture, many mainline churches are struggling with the issue, including Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist and Presbyterian churches - some to the point of rupture.

In their general conference earlier this month, regional leaders of the United Methodist Church reaffirmed that homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching - though by a lesser margin each time the issue arises, said the Rev. Don Lee of Sierra Pines United Methodist Church in southern Nevada County.

Yet individual congregations have widely varying positions on how to include gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in their midst, Lee said.

Love between two people who want to experience the commitment of marriage "reflects God's love for us," Lee said. "When you view their lives through relationship, and two people fall in love and want to fully experience that love, I don't see how you can say that's not an experience of the divine and the holy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report. To contact City Editor Trina Kleist, e-mail tkleist@theunion.com.