California court considers future of homosexual marriage

The case to overturn California's ban on homosexual marriage, approved by voters in 2008, is based on the argument that it denies equal rights to same-sex couples.

But it may turn on whether voters had a legitimate, reasonable reason for their decision or were motivated by discrimination.

Closing arguments will be held on Wednesday in the case, which began on January 11, and is likely to be appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court.

District court chief judge Vaughn Walker set the agenda for closing arguments with a long list of questions, including whether there was good reason, or rational basis, to maintain marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples.

"Voters' unfounded and discriminatory stereotypes are not a substitute for proof that a law actually furthers a legitimate state interest," wrote homosexual rights lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies, who faced off in the 2000 Supreme Court decision that put George Bush in the White House.

They argued that same-sex couples who marry grow healthier and wealthier, their children are better off, and the state benefits from the expanded definition of marriage.

Opposite-sex marriages are not affected and the California constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and a woman — similar to provisions in the vast majority of US states — is based in moral indignation and hate, they concluded.

Charles Cooper, the chief lawyer defending the ban known as Proposition 8, argued that homosexual marriages would, or at least reasonably could, weaken the institution of marriage by robbing it of special encouragement to stay together and raise children.

"These changes are likely to reduce the willingness of biological parents, especially fathers, to make the commitments and sacrifices necessary to marry, stay married, and play an active role in raising their children," Cooper wrote.

A ruling in the case is expected within weeks.