It has been four years since San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer issued his verdict on February 12, 2004 to legalize same-sex marriage. On Tuesday, March 4, the California Supreme Court will hear the final arguments in favor of and against the constitutionality of same-sex marriage.

“This is an opportunity for California to do what it’s done for so long,” said Melanie Rowen, 30, staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, "to show leadership on Civil Rights issues.”

Along with the NCLR, the plaintiffs in favor of same-sex marriage legislation include the San Francisco City Attorney’s office, Equality California, the American Civil Liberties Union and Our Family Coalition. The plaintiffs' official position is that “barring same-sex couples from marriage discriminates based on sexual orientation and sex and violates the fundamental right to marry as protected by the California Constitution’s guarantees of privacy, intimate association, and due process,” according to the NCLR website.

The defendants include Christopher Edward Krueger of the attorney general’s office and private attorney Kenneth C. Mennemeier, who will be representing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Their stance is that heterosexual marriage is an institution of tradition and the ban on same-sex marriage does not violate the state Constitution. In 2000, voters approved Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Since then, the governor has maintained that granting same-sex marriage would violate the will of voters.

One year after Judge Kramer’s 2004 ruling, the Court of Appeal’s overturned his verdict, which nullified the marriage licenses granted to gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco. The legal battles between pro-and-anti advocates of gay marriage have since reached a legal fervor.

Specifically, it will be the last verdict given to determine the validity of the marriage licenses issued to over 4,000 gay and lesbian couples in 2004 and 2005. The justices will hear the final arguments and rule within 90 days. After that, the case will be closed.

“My own opinion is that the government shouldn’t have anything to do with gay marriage at all,” said James Kincaid, 22, vice president of external affairs of SF State's College Republicans. “Since there is a separation between church and state, and marriage is inherently a religious institution, then the government should only be dealing with civil unions.”

However, Kincaid thinks it is highly unlikely that the government will separate itself from marriage.

“It’s a really hot topic, there are religious and non-religious groups [on both sides],” he said. “I believe in the fundamental human rights and feel terrible for the people who don’t have the same benefits. At the same time, it is a religious ceremony and so the religious bodies that oppose it shouldn’t be denigrated either."

“We’re coming to a peak,” said Samantha Lee, a 21-year-old lesbian film student at the Academy of Art in San Francisco. “We’re about to get our rights. It won’t be about marriage, it’ll be about the government treating you like anybody else, like straight people.”

The case, entitled “In re Marriage Cases” is an umbrella lawsuit for the cases that have come before the trial, supreme and appellate courts in past years such as Woo v. California, City and County of San Francisco v. California, Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco, and Campaign for California Families v. Newsom.

The final arguments for the case will be held at 9:00 a.m. at the Supreme Court of California, 350 McAllister Street.