The decision to accept the case was unanimous among the court's seven justices, although a date for oral arguments has yet to be set. Conservative groups had hoped the court would decline the appeal and allow a lower court ruling against gay marriage to stand.

At issue is a California law passed by voters in 2000 that protects the natural, traditional definition of marriage. Known as Proposition 22, it passed with 61 percent of the vote.

“The people of California spoke in 2000, and the people’s voice should be heard," Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a statement.

ADF supports allowing the current law to stand.

“Political special interests shouldn’t trump their voice regarding what’s in the best interests of families and children. This is the question the California courts will ultimately be deciding: Who is more important—our children and the voice of the people or politicians and special interest groups?"

Massachusetts remains the only state to recognize gay marriage, although Maryland's highest court heard a gay marriage case in December and could issue a decision in early 2007. Also, Connecticut's highest court is considering whether to accept an appeal of a gay marriage case.

The California Supreme Court's announcement further highlights a divide among conservative groups over a proposed constitutional marriage amendment. Conservatives had hoped to place an amendment prohibiting gay marriage on the ballot in 2006, but could not agree on the proposal's language. They subsequently divided into two competing groups and began gathering signatures. In the end, though, both amendments fell short of the requirement.

That division could prove to be significant. The California court likely will rule on the issue before an amendment can be placed on the ballot. If the court legalizes gay marriage, any statewide campaign to adopt a marriage amendment could be much tougher.

But the court's Dec. 20 announcement also could make it easier to collect signatures to qualify an amendment for the ballot.

The lawsuit was filed by the city of San Francisco and a host of liberal legal groups, including Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. They won at the trial court level, but lost 2-1 at the appeals court level. That appellate decision was handed down in October.

“Courts simply do not have the authority to create new rights, especially when doing so involves changing the definition of so fundamental an institution as marriage," Justice William R. McGuiness wrote for the majority in October. "... The time may come when California chooses to expand the definition of marriage to encompass same-sex unions. That change must come from democratic processes, however, not by judicial fiat."

The Justice Department has brought suit in U.S. District Court in Chicago against a Seneca, Ill., couple, Royanne and Neal Reddy, and their businesses, Royanne’s Tax Services and Royanne & Company, seeking to bar them permanently from preparing federal tax returns for others. According to the government complaint, the Reddys, operating their businesses in Marseilles and Princeton, Ill., have prepared more than 9,000 returns since 2002.

The complaint states that the IRS examined 70 income tax returns prepared by the Reddys or employees under their direct supervision. It’s further alleged that all of these returns required adjustments, and 64 returns contained improper deductions of as much as $30,000. The complaint alleges that average under-reported tax on these 70 returns was $2,775, and states that the IRS estimates the total cost to the Treasury of the Reddys’ and their employees’ improper income tax return preparation to be more than $13 million.

The government’s suit alleges that the Reddys fraudulently fabricate or inflate business expenses for customers to reduce their reported income. The Reddys also allegedly fabricate income for some customers to get them Earned Income Tax Credits to which they are not entitled. It is further alleged that the Reddys have provided fabricated documents to IRS agents auditing their customers’ returns.

The suit asks the court to order the Reddys to give the government a list with their customers’ names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers.

The State of California has decided not to appeal a December 21st decision of the California 1st District Court of Appeal restoring voting rights to approximately 100,000 inmates serving a year or less for felony convictions in local jails. The case, filed by the League of Women Voters of California and other voter and prisoner right interest groups, challenged a December 2005 interpretation of Art. 2 Sec. 4 of the California Constitution by Secretary of State Bruce McPhearson maintaining that those serving short term sentences for felonies in county jails were not eligible to vote.

The court’s decision relied on Section 17 of the California Penal Code, which defines felonies and misdemeanors. When a person is sent to a local jail, typically for confinement as a condition of probation, they are not actually convicted of a felony, which would allow their voting rights to be stripped.

A state appeals court is restoring the voting rights of about 100,000 local jail inmates statewide who are serving a year or less for felony convictions.

The state said it would not appeal last week's decision from the 1st District Court of Appeal. The affected inmates were eligible to vote until last year, when the state disenfranchised them.

For three decades, California's secretary of state had interpreted the state Constitution as barring voting by those in state prisons and those on parole after their release. The appeals court said the state wrongly changed the policy last year to include persons convicted of felonies but sentenced to a year or less in a local county jail.

The League of Women Voters brought the case on behalf of three San Francisco County jail inmates.

Governor Bob Taft (R-OH) Wednesday received a public reprimand from the Ohio Supreme Court for ethics violations stemming from charges that he received over 50 gifts worth up to $6,000 during four years in office. The reprimand will be a permanent mark on his record as an attorney, but while the justices had the option of issuing a stronger punishment in their 6-0 opinion, they cited Taft's previously clean record as a lawyer and otherwise unblemished record in public office.

In 2005, Taft pleaded no contest and was fined for the original charges, however in April of this year a disciplinary action was initiated by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, part of the Ohio Supreme Court tasked with monitoring lawyer behavior. That office determined that Taft had violated the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility by accepting the gifts. Taft did not seek re-election due to term limits, and is leaving office in less than 2 weeks. He has said that he would be more interested in teaching than in returning to practicing law.

A podiatrist is appealing his federal-court conviction and two-year prison sentence for tax evasion, but a federal judge says the doctor must still report to prison on Jan. 5.

Dr. Clifford B. Marston of Gassville operated Sunshine Foot Clinics at Mountain Home and Harrison. The 57-year-old was convicted in May of tax evasion and filing false income tax returns.

Marston was sentenced to 26 months in prison and ordered to pay about $300,000 in restitution and fines.

U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren denied a request from Marston to remain free on bond while his appeal proceeds, and ordered him to report to prison on Jan. 5.

Marston filed a notice of appeal in federal court at Harrison on Dec. 22. He said last year that the IRS had misapplied regulations and he believed that most Americans do not have taxable income.