LOS ANGELES - The California Supreme Court appeared divided yesterday over the constitutionality of the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
During three hours of arguments by lawyers for and against gay marriage, Justice Joyce L. Kennard questioned whether "the state has effectively conceded there is no valid grounds for distinction" between domestic partnership and marriage.
But at least three of the seven justices repeatedly noted that California voters have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and that the public might not be ready to embrace same-sex marriage.
Justice Carol A. Corrigan indicated that it might be best to leave the question to the public, whose perception of gay marriage, she said, is "evolving." She also asked lawyers to show her where the state constitution addressed same-sex marriage.
Justice Carlos R. Moreno's questions did not make clear which way he was leaning. But he asked a lawyer for the city of San Francisco whether the state's domestic partnerships gave same-sex couples rights equal to those extended to married couples.
"It's not equal, your honor," Deputy City Attorney Therese M. Stewart said.
Moreno asked, "Doesn't this just boil down to the use of the 'M' word, marriage?"
Stewart replied, "That symbol has deep meaning."
Chief Justice Ronald M. George suggested that the state might want to give same-sex unions a different name, because the federal government does not recognize gay marriage. But he also peppered opponents of same-sex marriage with skeptical questions.
The court's decision will resolve a dispute that began in 2004, when the city and county of San Francisco sanctioned nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages. The justices have 90 days to decide whether to strike down California law that limits marriage to a man and a woman, and instead permit same-sex couples to wed.
The courtroom was packed for the long-awaited hearing, with lawyers for various sides taking turns at the podium.
Attorneys for same-sex couples and for San Francisco argued that the state marriage law violates equal-protection rights and antidiscrimination laws, while lawyers for the attorney general's and governor's offices, and for pro-family and religious groups, insisted that cultural tradition justifies a ban on gay weddings.
A trial judge in San Francisco had ruled in favor of the gay couples, but that decision was overturned 2 to 1 by a Court of Appeal panel. The court received dozens of written arguments from law professors, psychologists, religious groups, and civil-rights advocates on whether same-sex couples should be permitted to marry.
The seven-member court is considered cautious and moderately conservative.
In 2004, a Supreme Judicial Court ruling made Massachusetts the only state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage. New Jersey and Vermont have approved civil unions as an alternative.
Several other state supreme courts, including those in New York, Washington, and Maryland, have ruled that marriage can be limited to one man and one woman. More than half the states have passed amendments barring same-sex marriage, and President Bush has proposed a constitutional amendment to do so.
In briefs submitted to the California court, backers of same-sex marriage said the state's constitution leaves no room for denying gays and lesbians the right to wed.
The state and same-sex marriage opponents say limiting marriage to members of the opposite sex is reasonable because California voters approved a ballot initiative eight years ago reinforcing the gay-marriage ban that was in place at the time. To overturn that law would abrogate the rights of all Californians, they say.
Material from the Associated Press was included in this report.
