Liberty Counsel
NEWS RELEASE

Contact: PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - 800-671-1776

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 14, 2005

San Francisco Judge Rules Marriage Laws Unconstitutional
This case will pour gasoline on the fire ignited by the pro-marriage movement

San Francisco, CA – Today, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled California’s marriage laws, which clearly limit marriage to one man and one woman, unconstitutional. In his opinion, Judge Kramer stated, “It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.” Kramer further stated, “The state’s protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional.” Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, and Rena Lindevaldsen, Senior Litigation Counsel, represent Campaign for California Families (“CCF”) and its founder, Randy Thomasson, in this case.

Last February, the California marriage laws came under attack when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom broke the law and began to arbitrarily issue same-sex marriage licenses. Liberty Counsel filed suit on behalf of CCF against Mayor Newsom. In July, the California Supreme Court ruled that Newsom had no authority to issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples and found such licenses to be null and void. The several lawsuits filed against Mayor Newsom and by same-sex marriage advocates were then consolidated before Judge Kramer.

Judge Kramer’s decision strikes down Proposition 22, which was a statewide voter legislative initiative that was passed in 2000 by a vote of 61.4%. Proposition 22 declared that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. The decision relies on the California Constitution Equal Protection Clause.

Staver said that Liberty Counsel will appeal this decision on behalf of CCF. Staver commented, “This ruling is not the end of the battle. It is just the beginning. Marriage should not be undermined by the stroke of a pen from a single judge. Marriage is a fundamental policy issue that must be decided by the people. To rule that there is no rational purpose to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman is ludicrous. This ruling, which flies in the face of common sense and millennia of human history, will pour gasoline on the fire ignited by the pro-marriage movement. Californians and the rest of the country will react to this decision by passing constitutional amendments to preserve marriage on the state and federal levels. No society has created a buffet-like arrangement of human relationships from which anyone may pick and choose and call it marriage. Marriage is and must remain the union of one man and one woman.”



###