For those who have ever pondered the "what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object" problem, California's gay marriage debate is about to show us in a big way.

Both sides are escalating their battles to have this issue finally settled forever, one way or another, in the state's constitution.

Monday's ruling by San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional threw gasoline on an already inflamed battle.

While Kramer ruled that "no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," his ruling far from settles the case.

This ruling, naturally, will be appealed.

So while Kramer's interesting piece of legal interpretation wends through the courts, larger forces are already at work.

Steaming in from the left flank are the pro-gay marriage forces, bolstered by Kramer's ruling but already hard at work in the Legislature. They hope to amend state law through Assembly Bill 19.

Introduced Jan. 5 by Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, this bill seeks a gender-neutral legal definition of marriage for California. It sits today in the Committee on Judiciary.

The bill reads, in part:

"Existing law provides that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. This bill would enact the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,' which would instead provide that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons."

Of course, Leno heralded Kramer's ruling as a win for his side:

But let's not be so quick to declare victory for the pro-gay marriage side.

Steaming in from the right comes the Defend Marriage effort backed by the Moral Majority. This side has gathered forces to not only fight AB 19, but to continue to seek a ballot measure for a state constitutional marriage amendment.

In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The vote for the initiative was 61.4 percent to 38.6 percent.

The right also gained huge momentum last fall when all 13 states that had a "traditional marriage" constitutional amendment on the ballot approved them by high percentages: from 57 percent in Oregon to 86 percent in Mississippi.

Both sides recognize the importance of California in leading the nation on the gay marriage issue.

"When one out of eight Americans live in California, you know this is the biggest gorilla that influences everyone else," said Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families.

And already claiming victory in the "traditional marriage" campaign is Matthew Staver, vice president of the Liberty Council, a national organization that describes itself as "advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family."

"The 2004 election energized people of faith and social conservatives with an overwhelming mandate on traditional marriage and morality," Staver writes on the council's Web site. "Every politician must hear the message of the American people loud and clear: If you don't vote right on marriage, then you may want to look for another job."

Clearly, both sides are feeling immovable and irresistible and they are racing straight toward the same target.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom set a lot of this in motion with his February 2004, defiance of state law, personally declaring same-sex marriage prohibitions unconstitutional and allowing some 4,000 gay couples to wed at City Hall.

It was an irresponsible display of contempt for California law that ended in heartbreak for those couples. The state Supreme Court soon nullified their marriages, while chastising Newsom.

Public officials cannot dismiss state law at their whim, the judges wrote. To do so means "any semblance of uniform rule of law would quickly disappear."

It's that uniform rule of law we still seek today.

The high court ducked the elephant in the room during that hearing, limiting its opinion to Newsom's actions only. No ruling was given on the overall legality of same-sex marriage.

That's no surprise. Gay marriage is an incendiary issue few politicians and legal experts want to touch.

Today, though, whether they look to the left or the right, they cannot help but see the large, looming shadow of an issue that will no longer be ignored.

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

Some say the universe implodes.

If so, by this time next year, the issue should finally have been decided. One way or another, somebody's universe will fold.

This entry was posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 at 7:03 AM. Want to discuss? Leave a comment below.