Last month (March 4), the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments for In re Marriage Cases

- could be a landmark case. If you're so inclined, you can listen to all 3 hrs, 38 minutes of it here. The Court must rule in 90 days (Art. VI § 19.).

Personally,
I don't see any harm in gay marriage and fundamentally don't understand
why some people are against it, often passionately. Like Gavin Newsom,
I see it as a civil rights issue. If two consenting adults love one
another and want to spend their lives together, what's the point in
denying them certain civil rights and broader societal acceptance?
Keeping an antiquated law in place doesn't keep people from being gay,
it merely creates unnecessary misery.

I believe that gay
marriage will inevitably win the day because it's in line with common
sense, reason and logic. I can't even think of a good argument for
categorically discriminating against a whole class of people, based
solely on their sexual orientation. Making gay couples call each other
"domestic partners" rather than allowing them to be full fledged
spouses smacks of 'separate but equal.' In this case, it seems that a
rose by any other name does not smell as sweet.

On that note,
California has already created domestic partnerships for gay couples
that grant them all or virtually all of the rights and benefits of
marriage under state law (federal law being, of course, separate). Why
not call these relationships "marriages" instead of "domestic
partnerships?"

California
Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger, representing the state,
argued that California's traditional definition of marriage as the
union of a man and a woman has "stood the test of time" and was approved by the state legislature in 1977. The
state's counsel argued that withholding the title of "marriage" is
justified by the state's desire to "preserve the common and traditional
definition of marriage."

To this, Justice Kennard pointed out
that Califronia also used to prevent interracial marriage, allowed
women to be treated as chattel and prohibited females from serving as
police officers or fire fighters.

From
what I can gather, gay marriage opponents seem to believe that allowing
same sex couples to marry would increase some generalized moral decay
in society, which in my opinion is fear-based and doesn't even make
sense. What's so scary about same sex couples, anyway? Does allowing
the gay couple next door to marry in any way undermine my heterosexual
marriage? How could it?

I also don't believe that God has
directly said anything about gay marriage. Moreover, church and state
should be separate on this issue, anyway.

Gay marriage is an
idea whose time will come, and I hope that we as a society choose to
evolve sooner rather than later on this issue.

So, bottom line, that's what I think should happen... the question of the hour is what will happen.

In re Marriage Cases consolidates various individual cases challenging California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. The lawsuits stem from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's 2005 decision to issue marriage licenses to 4,000 same-sex couples.

Plaintiffs in In re Marriage Cases argued that the right to marry is protected by the California Constitution.
Plaintiffs also compared the ban against gay marriage to California's
old ban against interracial marriage, which was struck down by the
California Supreme Court's decision in Perez v. Sharp in 1948. At that time, it was the first court in the nation to strike down the practice as discriminatory.

The
voter-approved ban is the real hitch in this case. Again, I can't
imagine why voters did approve the ban, but the fact is that they did.
The question now is whether the court should overturn the will of the
people. Some California Supreme Court justices were troubled by that, other justices hinted that they have an obligation to intervene if the ban is unconstitutional.

Justice
Joyce Kennard also expressed skepticism that the court should wait for
the voters or legislators to remedy discrimination, noting that Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger already has twice vetoed legislation that would permit gay marriage.

Only
one state, Massachusetts, allows gay marriage, though in addition to
California, the Connecticut Supreme Court is also considering the
issue. In New York, a Canadian gay marriage was recently recognized.

Most legal pundits I've read seem to believe that it will be a very close vote.
Some even think that a loss for same sex marriage proponents could be a
blessing in disguise. It seems unclear what level of review (strict
scrutiny vs. rational basis) will be used, but the case could wind up
turning on that.

In what has been described as a sea change,
young people are as confused as I am about all the fuss over gay
marriage. So if it's not this generation that finally ends this
pointless form of discrimination, it will be the next.

Why wait?