In preparation for hearing oral arguments March 4 in the same-sex marriage case, the state's Supreme Court justices had to digest more than 90 briefs filed by the parties to the six consolidated lawsuits and from amici curiae, or "friends of the court," with an interest in the case.

The task was so daunting that the court had to delay scheduling the case in order to allow enough time for the seven justices to read through the mountain of legal arguments the court received.

Thirty of the briefs came from parties supportive of same-sex marriage. They represent various legal associations and interest groups, ranging from matrimonial lawyers, anthropologists and psychologists, to religious leaders and civil rights organizations like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

To help readers digest the legal reasoning behind the briefs and meet the people who crafted the arguments, the Bay Area Reporter teamed up with Marriage Equality USA to launch a new online series called Friends of the Court. - Matthew Bajko

Briefs by black groups cite equality

"It is a terrible, an inexorable, law that one cannot deny the humanity of another without diminishing one's own," – James Baldwin

"It is particularly apt to conclude our amicus brief with this quote," explains Professor Aderson Francois, supervising attorney at Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic. "Not only was Baldwin gay and African American, he rejected any notion that he had to choose between either community and he stood up for the equal rights of gay people.

Cities, counties push for change

In his campaign two years ago, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders stated his support for domestic partnerships, not marriage. He consistently indicated he would veto the City Council's resolution for San Diego to sign onto the cities and counties' amicus brief that urged the California Supreme Court to grant same-sex couples the right to marry. What happened once the resolution landed on his desk, however, has become one of the most moving and unforgettable moments in this marriage equality movement.

Lawmakers' goal is equality

"I never imagined that domestic partnerships might somehow be used as an excuse not to allow same-sex couples to marry," said former Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, the author of AB 205, in an August 2007 op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times. But in a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeal upheld the marriage prohibition for gay and lesbian couples.

Decisions are not popularity contests

"It is not the role of the court to put its finger to the wind in reaching a decision, that's what legislators do," stated Jesse Choper, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) and former dean of Boalt Hall. "Whatever method of determination the court uses, it should not take into account what the majority of people think or what the popular will is."

Domestic Partnerships fall short on privacy

What is your marital status? What is the occupation of your spouse?" a Los Angeles judge asked prospective jurors. As Laura Brill, a potential juror in this case described in a Sacramento Bee op-ed piece "These defied easy answers. Why? I have shared my life with the same person for 20 years. We have two children. We are definitely not single, separated, or divorced. But we are not married either. As a same-sex couple, we cannot marry in California and if we married elsewhere, California would refuse to recognize that marriage."

Asian groups back gay marriage

Amicus co-author and nationally recognized appellate lawyer, Kevin Fong, hopes that by reading the Asian Pacific American's amicus brief in support of the freedom to marry, the Court will "have a greater appreciation for what is at issue, by looking at the State's prior exclusionary marriage laws from the vantage point of a longer historical lens.

Kevin Fong

Constitutional issues are much easier to see with 20/20 historical hindsight and perhaps the reaction we have today in examining how Asian Pacific Americans were previously restricted from the right to marry will allow the court to consider its role in protecting the fundamental Constitutional principles at stake as we again consider exclusionary marriage laws aimed at gays and lesbians today."

Religious believers and doubters share faith in gay marriage

Over 400 religious leaders, congregations and denominations from a wide variety of faith traditions signed on to this brief which examines whether the interest in marriage equality "finds support in our history, our traditions and the conscience of our people."

Family lawyers and doctors examine marriage case

It was so cool," said 13-year-old Gabrial Damast, who served as ring bearer for his two moms when they married in San Francisco. "I always accepted that 'Yeah, they're my moms,' but they were actually getting married. I felt thick inside with happiness."

Professor Joan Hollinger was struck by Gabriel's enthusiasm as she read his quote in a March 2004 New York Times article, "For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy."

"The inability of their parents to marry one another leaves a child with a sense of social stigma," stated Hollinger, a leading American scholar on adoption law and practice.

Women's groups weigh in on marriage case

"There is a tremendous amount of sexism that underlies homophobia," explains Jennifer Brown, vice president and executive director of Legal Momentum (the oldest legal advocacy organization dedicated to women's rights).

"Women's rights and LGBT rights are inextricably entwined because so much of the hatred and fear that surrounds homophobia involves the fact that lesbians and gay men step out of traditional gender roles and thereby shatter gender stereotypes that have existed so long."

Business boon with gay marriage

Courts and Legislatures in Canada, Spain, and South Africa have determined that "excluding gays and lesbians from the fundamental right to marry causes grave harm to their human dignity and freedom."

Furthermore, these foreign states have examined and rejected separate institutions (like domestic partnerships); in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain government spokespeople have stated "freedom, dignity and equality demand nothing less."

Almost 30 civil rights groups support gay marriage

"As we speak out about why marriage matters and how the denial of marriage harms couples and kids, undermining our nation's commitment to fairness and freedom, we've seen states move in the right direction, but falling short of equality," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, an organization which jointly filed one of these highlighted amicus briefs.

"States such as California, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont have created new legal mechanisms, called partnership or civil union, to provide parallel legal protections and responsibilities for gay people and their families. These new mechanisms are better than nothing, but no substitute for marriage itself.

Professional groups weigh in on gay marriage

Six leading national and statewide professional associations that collectively represent over 350,000 professionals have joined with the Committee on Civil Rights in the San Francisco Bay Area to file two amicus briefs that highlight the emotional and psychological harms of categorically denying gays and lesbians the opportunity to get married.

Unfair prejudice must never prevail

Morris Dees, one of the founders of the Southern Poverty Law Center, has been characterized as the lawyer who "took the Ku Klux Klan to the cleaners" through filing a series of innovative lawsuits that drove several KKK operations into bankruptcy and the SPLC has been known for being on the cutting edge of addressing social problems by challenging the law. As SPLC legal director Rhonda Brownstein describes, "SPLC doesn't just file any amicus brief, we have to passionately believe in the issue."

The constitution and the pursuit of happiness

"Considering the history of prejudice and discrimination against gays and lesbians, I think the court should engage in a serious and meaningful inquiry on whether there is any justification for the state denying same-sex couples the right to marry," asserted Professor Joseph Grodin.

The court should focus on our California Constitution, which provides several provisions – including the right to privacy, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – that are directly relevant in this case."