Published 2008-03-04T00:00:00Z”/>

An important debate came up again Tuesday as the California Supreme Court heard arguments during a three-hour hearing on whether the state has the authority to prevent same-sex marriages.

In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22 with more than 60 percent of votes. The proposition stated “Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman.” A section was added to the California Family Code that said, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

But that law was defied in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. More than 4,000 couples lined up to affirm their love much like heterosexual couples do every day throughout this state.

The state later ruled the marriages invalid, but a joint lawsuit between some of the couples and the city of San Francisco made its way to the state Supreme Court and now Californians will have to wait possibly up to three months to find out the court’s decision.

Making same-sex marriage legal is a right that will one day be exercised by homosexual couples across the nation. It’s just a matter of time.

The government should not dictate what love is or whose love should be legally recognized.

In many states, including California, domestic partnership laws already give same-sex couples similar rights to those of married couples. But it’s time to give them full rights.

The sanctity of marriage argument that opposition groups tout as their defense to continue discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community doesn’t work any more.

Divorce rates are at an all-time high, couples can get hitched at a drive-thru cathedral in Las Vegas and the media gobble up all news of daily Hollywood breakups. But no one is stopping Dick and Jane from tying the knot.

Some states have already made progress toward equality.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled the state cannot “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.” A clause in the Massachusetts constitution prohibits “the creation of second-class citizens.”

Much like the Jim Crowe laws of the South, this issue of same-sex marriage is not the first to divide Americans by who they are.

The U.S. Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia ruled in 1967 to end all race-based restrictions on marriage in the United States.

Forty-one years later, it’s time for the California Supreme Court to stop interpreting marriage as between a man and a woman. How much further will we go into history before realizing our sexual-orientation-based restrictions are just as discriminatory?

Merriam-Webster dictionary has updated its entry for marriage to include a definition that reads “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”

It’s time California update its definition of marriage as well.

<strong>Editorial Board</strong>Ashley Gebb, managing editorOlga Munoz, news editorMike Murphy, opinion editorRyan Van Fleet, sports editorLeslie Williams, entertainment editorCari Radford, features editorDavid Flannery, photo editorGenny McLaren, chief copy editorChelsea Accursi, online editor