Richard Kramer (judge)

Last updated

Richard A. Kramer (born Boston, Massachusetts, July 22, 1947) is a judge serving on the San Francisco County Superior Court. He is most known for his 2005 ruling striking down Proposition 22, a California ballot initiative defining marriage as only valid when between a man and a woman.

Contents

Education and career

Kramer received a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science in 1969, graduating magna cum laude. He was graduated from the University of Southern California Law School in 1972 as a Doctor of Jurisprudence.

Kramer worked as civil litigator representing the banking industry. [1] He was appointed to the San Francisco County Superior Court by California Governor Pete Wilson in 1996. Kramer has been recognized for his ability to handle many complex cases,[ citation needed ] leading to California's Judicial Council to appoint him as the same-sex "Marriage Cases" coordinator.[ citation needed ]

Marriage case and response

Kramer made headlines [2] [3] in March 2005 when he struck down Proposition 22, a California ballot initiative defining marriage as between a man and a woman. on the grounds that it denies the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice." In his decision, he pointed out the "obvious natural and social reality that one does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married" and that "California's enactment of rights for same-sex couples belies any argument that the State would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage", concluding that "there is no rational state interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well."[ citation needed ]

According to a San Francisco Chronicle news article. [4] "A crucial point of the ruling was the judge's conclusion that the marriage law amounts to sex discrimination, a finding that is enough to overturn virtually any California law under the state's strict constitutional standard." The law makes "the gender of the intended spouse... the sole determining factor" of the legality of a marriage, Kramer said; he said claims by the law's defenders that the law treats men and women equally were no more valid than earlier claims that anti-interracial marriage laws treated whites and blacks equally."

The decision was not put into legal effect during the appeals process. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supported the status quo of domestic partnership rights, but said that he would abide by the California Supreme Court's decision and not push any constitutional amendment to override the courts.

Kramer, in the words of a National Review editorial, [5] "[F]inds the law's definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman not just wrong or outdated but irrational... He has never heard of a possible reason to regard marriage as a male-female union. That view of marriage... cannot survive even the lowest level of scrutiny a judge can bring to bear on a statute." National Review argued that "This kind of pseudo-rationalism would undermine any marriage law at all" because not all marriages fulfill the roles for which they were designed. The magazine considered the decision to be anti-democratic judicial activism. "There is no plausible argument that any provision of the state constitution was originally understood to require same-sex marriage," argues the editorial.

Political commentator Andrew Sullivan conceded that the decision was judicial activism, with which he is somewhat uncomfortable. Nevertheless, he applauded the decision in his blog, noting:

[W]hen state constitutions insist upon it, you have to have a much stronger argument to keep a minority disenfranchised than the current anti-marriage forces have been able to marshal. Tradition? So was the ban on inter-racial marriage. Procreation? Non-procreative straight couples can get civil licenses. The potential collapse of civilization? Impossible to prove or even argue convincingly. Once you have accepted that there is no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, the arguments against same-sex marriage collapse. And since the only coherent moral difference is the likelihood of non-procreative sex, and that is now the norm in traditional heterosexual civil marriage, there is no moral case against allowing gay couples to have civil marriage. The rest is fear and prejudice and religious conviction. None should have a place as a legal argument in the courts

[ citation needed ] Sullivan also noted: "Kramer is not a radical. He's a Catholic Republican appointed by a former Republican governor."[ citation needed ] Finally, Sullivan counters the argument that the decision undermines all marriage law thus:

No one is using any of these actual, not-always-present aspects of civil marriage to deny anyone's right to marry. No one, so far as I know, is saying that we should bar couples from civil marriages because they are not in love or not cohabiting or any other criterion. But they are saying that couples [that] do not or cannot procreate should be barred from marriage - on those grounds alone. All Kramer is saying is that current marriage laws have no such exception, and that using that exception to exclude one group of non-procreative couples (the gay ones) rather than another non-procreative group (the straight ones) makes no logical sense. Especially when many lesbian (and some gay ones) marriages have biological children, and some straight ones have adopted kids.

[ citation needed ]

In 2008, after the California Supreme Court reversed the appeal which had overturned Kramer's decision, essentially upholding Kramer's original decision but on different grounds, Kramer officiated some of the first same-sex weddings in San Francisco. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

Baker v. Vermont, 744 A.2d 864, was a lawsuit decided by Vermont Supreme Court on December 20, 1999. It was one of the first judicial affirmations of the right of same-sex couples to treatment equivalent to that afforded different-sex couples. The decision held that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage denied rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. The court ordered the Vermont legislature to either allow same-sex marriages or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights to same-sex couples.

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), also referred to by proponents as the Marriage Protection Amendment, was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would legally define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA would also prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex (gay) or other unmarried homosexual couples.

<i>Goodridge v. Department of Public Health</i> 2003 US state court case which legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941, is a landmark Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case in which the Court held that the Massachusetts Constitution requires the state to legally recognize same-sex marriage. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry. Despite numerous attempts to delay the ruling, and to reverse it, the first marriage licenses were issued to same-sex couples on May 17, 2004, and the ruling has been in full effect since that date.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2000 California Proposition 22</span> Referendum in California on same-sex marriage ban

Proposition 22 was a law enacted by California voters in March 2000 stating that marriage was between one man and one woman. In November 2008, Proposition 8 was also passed by voters, again only allowing marriage between one man and one woman.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 Oregon Ballot Measure 36</span>

Ballot Measure 36 was a 2004 initiative in the U.S. state of Oregon. It amended the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The initiative passed with 1,028,546 votes in favor, and 787,556 votes against in the November 2, 2004 general election. It is one of a number of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions.

<i>Andersen v. King County</i> Washington Supreme Court case

Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963, formerly Andersen v. Sims, is a Washington Supreme Court case in which eight lesbian and gay couples sued King County and the state of Washington for denying them marriage licenses under the state's 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The court ruled that banning same-sex marriage is constitutional since the legislature could reasonably believe it furthers the government interest in promoting procreation.

Same-sex marriage in California has been legal since June 28, 2013. The U.S. state first issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 16, 2008 as a result of the Supreme Court of California finding in the case of In re Marriage Cases that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the Constitution of California. The issuance of such licenses was halted from November 5, 2008 through June 27, 2013 due to the passage of Proposition 8—a state constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriages. The granting of same-sex marriages recommenced following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which restored the effect of a federal district court ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional.

In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 was a California Supreme Court case where the court held that laws treating classes of persons differently based on sexual orientation should be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and that an existing statute and initiative measure limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the rights of same-sex couples under the California Constitution and may not be used to preclude them from marrying.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 8</span> Ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment passed in November 2008

Proposition 8, known informally as Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional amendment intended to ban same-sex marriage; it passed in the November 2008 California state elections and was later overturned in court. The proposition was created by opponents of same-sex marriage in advance of the California Supreme Court's May 2008 appeal ruling, In re Marriage Cases, which followed the short-lived 2004 same-sex weddings controversy and found the previous ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

<i>Varnum v. Brien</i>

Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862, was an Iowa Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the state's limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution. The case had the effect of legally recognizing same-sex marriage in Iowa. In 2007, a lower court had granted summary judgment in favor of six same-sex couples who sued Timothy Brien, Polk County Recorder, for refusing to grant them marriage licenses.

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, 289 Conn. 135, 957 A.2d 407, is a 2008 decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court holding that allowing same-sex couples to form same-sex unions but not marriages violates the Connecticut Constitution. It was the third time that a ruling by the highest court of a U.S. state legalized same-sex marriage, following Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003) and California in In re Marriage Cases (2008). The decision legalized same-sex marriage in Connecticut when it came into effect on November 12, 2008. There were no attempts made to amend the state constitution to overrule the decision, and gender-neutral marriage statutes were passed into law in 2009.

Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 591, 207 P.3d 48 (2009), was a decision of the Supreme Court of California, the state's highest court. It resulted from lawsuits that challenged the voters' adoption of Proposition 8 on November 4, 2008, which amended the Constitution of California to outlaw same-sex marriage. Several gay couples and governmental entities filed the lawsuits in California state trial courts. The Supreme Court of California agreed to hear appeals in three of the cases and consolidated them so they would be considered and decided. The supreme court heard oral argument in the cases in San Francisco on March 5, 2009. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar stated that the cases will set precedent in California because "no previous case had presented the question of whether [a ballot] initiative could be used to take away fundamental rights".

Hollingsworth v. Perry was a series of United States federal court cases that re-legalized same-sex marriage in the state of California. The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law. This decision overturned California ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively. As Hollingsworth v. Perry, it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Same-sex marriage and the family</span>

Concerns regarding same-sex marriage and the family are at the forefront of the controversies over legalization of same-sex marriage. In the United States, an estimated 1 million to 9 million children have at least one lesbian, gay, bi, trans, intersex, or queer parent. Concern for these children and others to come are the basis for both opposition to and support for marriage for LGBT couples.

Same-sex marriage in Indiana has been legally recognized since October 6, 2014. The state had previously restricted marriage to different-sex couples by statute in 1986. By legislation passed in 1997, it denied recognition to same-sex relationships established in other jurisdictions. A lawsuit challenging the state's refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Baskin v. Bogan, won a favorable ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 25, 2014. Until the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of the district court's ruling on June 27, most Indiana counties issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling in Baskin on September 4. A ruling in Bowling v. Pence stated that the state must recognize same-sex marriages performed out-of-state and the decision was stayed until the Seventh Circuit ruled on the merits in similar cases. It also stated that the ruling would remain stayed if the circuit court stayed its decision in the related cases.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859, was a federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and decided on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It challenged the federal constitutionality of Nebraska Initiative Measure 416, a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages, civil unions, and other same-sex relationships.

Same-sex marriage in Arkansas has been legal since the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015, in which the court struck down same-sex marriage bans nationwide. Prior to this, same-sex marriage in Arkansas was briefly legal for a period beginning on May 9, 2014, as a result of a ruling by Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Chris Piazza striking down the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage as violating the U.S. Constitution. Approximately 541 same-sex couples received marriage licenses in several counties before the Arkansas Supreme Court stayed his ruling pending appeal on May 16, 2014.

<i>De Leon v. Perry</i>

De Leon v. Perry was a federal lawsuit challenging Texas marriage law, specifically the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and corresponding statutes. A U.S. district court ruled in favor of the plaintiff same-sex couples on February 26, 2014, granting their motion for a preliminary injunction. The state defendants filed an interlocutory appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as the disposition on the motion was not a final ruling in the case. On April 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for an expedited hearing, which was denied on May 21, 2014. The plaintiffs filed another motion for an expedited hearing on October 6, 2014, after the Supreme Court of the United States denied appeals in other marriage equality cases, and the motion was granted on October 7, 2014, setting a hearing for November 2014. However, on October 27, 2014, the Fifth Circuit set oral arguments for January 9, 2015.

<i>Bostic v. Schaefer</i>

Bostic v. Schaefer is a lawsuit filed in federal court in July 2013 that challenged Virginia's refusal to sanction same-sex marriages. The plaintiffs won in U.S. district court in February 2014, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in July 2014. On August 20, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the Fourth Circuit's ruling pending the outcome of further litigation. State officials refused to defend the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage.

References

  1. ↑ "Bay Area news, technology, jobs, cars & real estate". www.siliconvalley.com. Archived from the original on 2007-03-12.
  2. ↑ "Breaking International News & Views". Archived from the original on 2005-03-18.
  3. ↑ "California judge backs gay unions". 15 March 2005.
  4. ↑ "Judge strikes down ban on same-sex marriage / Legal basis: Law violated 'basic human right'". www.sfgate.com. Archived from the original on 2005-04-06.
  5. ↑ "The Editors on Marriage & California on National Review Online". www.nationalreview.com. Archived from the original on 2005-03-16.
  6. ↑ "Gay marriage backers want ban issue off ballot". 21 June 2008.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.