Today, the California Supreme Court convened in San Francisco for three hours of arguments about same-sex marriage in California. Each side was allotted ninety minutes of time to make their case, as an overflow audience watched the proceedings on video screens in a nearby building (and in auditoriums across the state, including here on the UC Berkeley campus).

Much argument centered around a 1948 case in which the Court struck down California’s ban on inter-racial marriage. In this case, the “right to join in marriage with the person of one’s choice” was recognized. Key to proponents of same-sex marriage is that the language is ambiguously gender-non-specific.

Lawyers for the State asserted that the ban on inter-racial marriage was purely discriminatory in nature, while the ban on same-sex marriage recognizes a long-standing cultural norm that marriage is between a man and a woman (and is therefore not discriminatory…?). They argue that because California has domestic partnership laws, the question of fairness is moot, as queer couples are already able to access many of the same benefits as actual married couples.

Not surprisingly, other opponents of same-sex marriage tried convincing the court that the passage of Proposition 22 in 2000 indicates the inviolable will of the people, attempting to dissuade the justices from interfering with the status quo. Proposition 22 barred California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states, which means a legal same-sex marriage from Massachusetts has no legal standing in California. It would have been interesting if the proponents of the Prop 22 argument had been asked if they believe civil rights should always be subject to a popular vote. Didn’t the pilgrims first come to America to escape persecution and the overbearing scepter of the English throne? Amusing that their cultural heirs would spend so much time and money prodding the powerful pen of the State to persecute another class of people hundreds of years later.

The topic of marriage as a vehicle for pro-creation, and thus its unavailability to queer couples, was also raised. One justice asked if infertile couples should be prohibited from joining in the marriage bed, given the argument that a prime reason marriage exists is to prod babymaking. The clever and convenient response was that an enquiry into the fertility of a couple applying for a marriage license would violate their right to privacy.

For full details, you can read the article here. A final ruling is expected within 90 days.