City of San Francisco sues State of California

[Jobber of the Week 0]

San Francisco sues state over gay marriage prohibitions

 

LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer

 

The city of San Francisco, which has sanctioned more than 2,800 gay marriages in the last week, sued the state of California on Thursday, challenging its prohibitions on same-sex marriages on constitutional grounds.

 

"The city and county of San Francisco is going on the offensive today to protect the mayor's action," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

 

Two judges are considering challenges from conservative groups seeking to halt the marriage spree that began last Thursday. The city's lawsuit asks that those cases be consolidated into one case to be heard by Superior Court Judge James Warren.

 

Mayor Gavin Newsom said he believed it was appropriate to start the process of giving out marriage licenses before the city's attorneys had gone to court to challenge the state's marriage laws, but that he's glad the question is now in the courts.

 

"I think what we have done is affirm marriage here in San Francisco," Newsom said. "We affirmed it because we are celebrating people coming together in their unions. I feel affirmed as a married man by what's happened here in San Francisco."

 

A lawyer for a group trying to halt the gay marriages described the city's move as a delaying tactic.

 

"This is as much a maneuver to keep this in court and keep the issue alive as it is anything else," said Benjamin Bull, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, which also filed a consolidation motion but asked that Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay hear the case.

 

Newsom has said that he was obliged to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples to avoid violating the equal protection clause of the California Constitution, a position opponents have attacked as irrelevant to whether his actions violate the state's marriage laws.

 

"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said. "The attorney general has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law in the case brought against the state by San Francisco."

 

Attorney General Bill Lockyer said it was his duty to defend laws that say the state will only recognize marriages between a man and a woman as valid.

 

"The issue of whether state statutes prohibiting same-sex marriages violate constitutional protections is emerging as one of the great legal and civil rights issues of our day, and the question must be answered by our courts," said Lockyer, who added that he supports extending benefits to same-sex couples through domestic partnerships and civil union laws.

 

Newsom also repeated his invitation to President Bush to meet some of the same-sex couples who have married in the past week before deciding whether to back a proposed federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

 

"I challenge him to learn a little about the extraordinary partnerships that have now been recognized, that have now been finally sanctified," Newsom said.

 

Earlier this week, Bush said he was troubled by gay weddings in San Francisco but declined to say whether he was close to backing a constitutional ban.

 

"I think the president is wrong on this," Newsom said.

 

The city, in its lawsuit, is asking Warren to declare unconstitutional the three sections of the California Family Code that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

 

"There will be a determination in these lawsuits about whether the restriction against same-sex couples marrying in California violates the equal protection and due process clauses" of the California Constitution, said Jon Davidson, an attorney with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

 

Davidson said city officials are bringing the suit to counter efforts by the conservative groups to block the city from issuing any more marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

 

On Tuesday, Warren gave the city the choice of ending the same-sex wedding parade or returning to court in late March to show why the process has not been halted. The city said it would continue issuing such licenses until forced to stop.

 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1840EST0177.DTL

[Firestarter 0]

"I challenge him to learn a little about the extraordinary partnerships that have now been recognized, that have now been finally sanctified," Newsom said.

Interesting choice of words. So now the city is sanctifying marriages?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Way to fix that 38 billion defict there guys.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am just curious, if SF wins, is it because of "radical activist judges"?

[NoCalMike 0]

Way to fix that 38 billion defict there guys.

What, you were counting on Arnold to fix it?

[Guest Cerebus]

I am just curious, if SF wins, is it because of "radical activist judges"?

When their mayor is so blatantly disobeying the law, then yes.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am just curious, if SF wins, is it because of "radical activist judges"? 

When their mayor is so blatantly disobeying the law, then yes.

I wouldn't consider the opinion of allowing gay marriages to be radical or extremist though. Maybe the mayor acted in a radical way, but lets just say SF is successful, and CA law is overturned, then other states slowly follow suit. Will it still be considered radical activism, or just a matter of eliminating another form of discimination?

[Guest Cerebus]

I am just curious, if SF wins, is it because of "radical activist judges"? 

When their mayor is so blatantly disobeying the law, then yes.

I wouldn't consider the opinion of allowing gay marriages to be radical or extremist though. Maybe the mayor acted in a radical way, but lets just say SF is successful, and CA law is overturned, then other states slowly follow suit. Will it still be considered radical activism, or just a matter of eliminating another form of discimination?

I don't consider the opinion of allowing gay marriages to be radical or extremist either. I consider a judge allowing such a flagrant disobedience of the law to continue as radical acitivism.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am just curious, if SF wins, is it because of "radical activist judges"? 

When their mayor is so blatantly disobeying the law, then yes.

I wouldn't consider the opinion of allowing gay marriages to be radical or extremist though. Maybe the mayor acted in a radical way, but lets just say SF is successful, and CA law is overturned, then other states slowly follow suit. Will it still be considered radical activism, or just a matter of eliminating another form of discimination?

I don't consider the opinion of allowing gay marriages to be radical or extremist either. I consider a judge allowing such a flagrant disobedience of the law to continue as radical acitivism.

ok, but would you also agree that some things that are considered radical activism at a certain moment in time, may actually produce good things for the future and when looked back on, may actually have been a positive turning point for our country(at least concerning that particular issue).

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Way to fix that 38 billion defict there guys.

That's another issue that will be decided on early March:

 

http://www.yes57and58.org/ <- Arnold's solution

 

http://www.yeson56.org/ <- The Dems' solution, which is kind of like Arnold's solution but it lowers the amount of votes needed on something to pass to the point that the Democrats can all agree to pass something and the Republicans are made ineffective.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I've heard on the talk-radio circuit that other mayors in Calif. should start breaking laws they may not agree with. The most common example of a law that "should be broken" is the state's gun control laws -- just have a mayor somewhere start giving out licenses like candy or something. I think a better thing to do would be to lower the state cigarette tax...

[Guest Cerebus]

I am just curious, if SF wins, is it because of "radical activist judges"? 

When their mayor is so blatantly disobeying the law, then yes.

I wouldn't consider the opinion of allowing gay marriages to be radical or extremist though. Maybe the mayor acted in a radical way, but lets just say SF is successful, and CA law is overturned, then other states slowly follow suit. Will it still be considered radical activism, or just a matter of eliminating another form of discimination?

I don't consider the opinion of allowing gay marriages to be radical or extremist either. I consider a judge allowing such a flagrant disobedience of the law to continue as radical acitivism.

ok, but would you also agree that some things that are considered radical activism at a certain moment in time, may actually produce good things for the future and when looked back on, may actually have been a positive turning point for our country(at least concerning that particular issue).

Yes, but this is not one of them. And many would consider the court throwing out many buisness regulations and handgun restrictions in the same light as you see throwing out any restriction on gay mairrage. Sorry bud, just because you disagree with something doesn't mean justices should quickly overturn it. That's not what they're there for.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think a better thing to do would be to lower the state cigarette tax...

Don't tempt them, my Dad has currently made more process quitting right now than he has... Well, ever since I've been born (and he's had plenty of failure attempts since.)

 

Anyway, one woman in the paper suggested that since the politicians don't care about state law, the citizens might as well just screw up on state taxes or something in their favor. I don't have the article with me, but it was kind of like that.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And many would consider the court throwing out many buisness regulations and handgun restrictions in the same light as you see throwing out any restriction on gay mairrage.

Handgun and business restrictions were born out of a church/state issue?

[Guest MikeSC]

And many would consider the court throwing out many buisness regulations and handgun restrictions in the same light as you see throwing out any restriction on gay mairrage.

Handgun and business restrictions were born out of a church/state issue?

No, but they are an infringement on Constitutional rights in the eyes of many. I say they should do it.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

And many would consider the court throwing out many buisness regulations and handgun restrictions in the same light as you see throwing out any restriction on gay mairrage.

Handgun and business restrictions were born out of a church/state issue?

They all stem from questions based on these.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Looks like this is catching on:

 

Same-sex couples line up for marriage licenses in New Mexico

 

Dozens of gay and lesbian couples arrived in this rural town Friday to get married after a county clerk announced she would grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

 

The Sandoval County clerk's office granted licenses to at least 15 same-sex couples before New Mexico attorney general Patricia Madrid issued a late afternoon opinion saying the licenses were "invalid under state law."

 

It wasn't immediately clear whether the opinion would stop Sandoval County from issuing the licenses.

 

About 50 couples had signed up for applications, with some waiting in a line in the hall outside the clerk's office.

 

County Clerk Victoria Dunlap said she decided to grant the licenses after county attorney David Mathews determined that New Mexico law is unclear on the issue. He said state law defines marriage as a contract between parties but does not mention gender.

 

"It's going to be across the country and so we wanted to be ahead of the curve," Dunlap said.

 

Outside the courthouse, two preachers spent the day conducting marriage ceremonies.

 

"When we heard the news this morning, we knew we couldn't wait. We had to come down here," said Jenifer Albright of Albuquerque, who exchanged vows with partner Anne Shultz.

 

Dunlap's decision came just over a week after San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to thousands of gay couples in a direct challenge to California law.

 

A spokeswoman said Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson was opposed to same-sex marriage.

 

"The governor has always been a champion for human rights. He supports equal rights and opposes all forms of discrimination. However, he is opposed to same-sex marriage," Marsha Catron said.

 

Earlier Friday, Two New Mexico state senators -- one Democrat and one Republican -- had asked Madrid for a prompt opinion on the matter. Republican state Sen. Steve Komadina criticized the county clerk.

 

"I feel badly that action was taken before an answer was obtained," Komadina said. "That was very irresponsible and will cause heartache to people on all sides of the question."

 

Bernalillo is a few miles north of Albuquerque, New Mexico's largest city.

 

The Judge won't put away the SF marriages yet. The most liberal of the politicians have finally spoken (or spoken through spokespeople) and seem to be against it. Granted, it would have helped if the Mayor had chosen some other time than now to do this, as a number of these liberal polsare up for re-election and may have supported him if they didn't have to worry about angry voters a few weeks away.

 

Judge denies immediate stay of gay marriages

 

Gay and lesbian couples won another reprieve Friday when a judge declined to immediately stop San Francisco from granting them marriage licenses, saying conservative groups failed to prove the weddings would cause irreparable harm.

 

Judge Ronald Evans Quidachay denied the Campaign for California Families' request for a temporary restraining order but said the group did have the right to a hearing on their argument that the city is violating state law.

 

The conservative group argued that the weddings harmed all the Californians who voted in 2000 for Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

The judge suggested that the rights of the gay and lesbian couples appeared to be more substantial.

 

"If the court has to weigh rights here, on the one hand you are talking about voting rights, and on the other you are talking about equal rights," Quidachay said.

 

Quidachay consolidated the Campaign for California Families' lawsuit against the city with one filed by another conservative group, and told lawyers for both sides to work out between themselves when the next hearing would be held. The city wants the suits heard by Judge James Warren, while the conservative groups want the case to go before Quidachay.

 

Mathew Staver, a lawyer with the Florida-based Liberty Counsel who is representing the Campaign for California Families, said his clients would be prejudiced if Warren heard the case.

 

Asked by reporters why he believed that, Staver said because it would delay the case and there were other reasons he wouldn't elaborate on. In a separate suit, Warren effectively allowed the weddings to continue by giving the city until March 29 to explain its actions in court.

 

Even though two judges have decided the city's actions do not constitute enough of an emergency to halt the marriages immediately, Staver believes the court will ultimately find that Mayor Gavin Newsom acted illegally when he started the process last week.

 

"He can't decide to grant same-sex marriage licenses any more than he can declare war against a foreign country," Staver said.

 

But chief deputy city attorney Therese Stewart said the failure of conservative opponents to win emergency injunctions demonstrates that the city has a strong case.

 

"The anti-gay groups brought two lawsuits because they wanted two bites at the apple and neither bite served them very well," Stewart said. "Both judges really recognized there is nobody who is hurt by allowing gay people to marry."

 

Newsom remained defiant before the ruling, officiating at the wedding of one of California's most prominent lesbian politicians inside his offices at City Hall.

 

A crowd of politicians and lawyers celebrated that wedding as other gays and lesbians, who lined up beginning at 4 a.m., prepared to join the more than 3,000 same-sex couples allowed to marry so far.

 

About 25 anti-gay protesters later blocked the door of the county clerk's office, lying down in front of the line and singing religious songs. Gays and lesbians responded by belting out "The Star-Spangled Banner" until deputies escorted out the protesters. No arrests were made.

 

Meanwhile, top Democrats belatedly issued statements in response to the city's brazen constitutional challenge, which has forced many politicians into uncharted territory.

 

While most Americans remain opposed to same-sex marriages, a new poll out Friday showed that only 50 percent of Californians remain opposed, and sympathy for allowing gays and lesbians to marry has risen by 6 points over the last four years, to 44 percent.

 

In the San Francisco Bay area, 58 percent of all respondents support gay marriage, according to the Public Policy Institute of California poll, which was based on a statewide survey taken Feb. 8-16 and has a margin of error of 2 percentage points.

 

Newsom's actions have been greeted skeptically even by some gay-rights supporters concerned that it will backfire and build support for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. California's two senators, both San Francisco Democrats, voiced opposition, mindful of the support four years ago against the practice.

 

"The people of California voted on Proposition 22 and by an overwhelming majority passed a law which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. If the mayor believes that law is unconstitutional the place to go is the court," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein. "I believe this makes the national situation much more complicated and gives ammunition to those who are pushing for a constitutional amendment."

 

For Sen. Barbara Boxer, an outspoken liberal and gay-rights proponent who is up for re-election in November, the issue threatens to become an election-year headache. With Republicans demanding she clarify her stance, she issued a brief statement.

 

"The mayor has decided to test state law," the statement read. "My opinion is that state law is fair and appropriate because it gives equal rights to all citizens."

 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi skirted the issue, affirming her support for gay rights without commenting on Newsom's actions. An aide said she was concerned about the impact of what Newsom was doing on the proposed constitutional amendment.

 

"Congresswoman Pelosi's position is clear -- she has always opposed discrimination of any kind, and has fought to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans throughout her time in Congress. She is proud to represent a city that will not tolerate discrimination," said a statement from her spokesman, Brendan Daly.

 

While opponents say Newsom is violating state laws, the mayor has said he's obliged to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples to avoid violating the equal protection clause of the California Constitution -- an argument made in the city's separate lawsuit against the state of California.

 

"Four times in seven days, courts have said San Francisco can keep marrying same-sex couples," said Jon Davidson, an attorney with the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "While this fight is far from over, this case will ultimately resolve whether the California Constitution requires that same-sex couples be given the equal right to marry."

 

Earlier Friday, Newsom officiated at the wedding of Carole Migden, who leads the state's Board of Equalization, and her partner of 19 years, criminal defense lawyer Cris Arguedas.

 

"I take great pride that people across America are watching and can see there are only great things being created here in San Francisco," Migden said.

 

San Francisco has been changing the standard wording in these ceremonies from "man and wife" to "spouses for life."

 

And finally, Arnold is saying a little more:

 

2/19: Statement by Gov. Schwarzenegger on Same-Sex Marriage Lawsuit by San Francisco

 

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger released the following statement today:

 

"The people of California spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when Prop. 22 was overwhelmingly passed in 2000. I will abide by the oath I took when I was sworn-in to uphold California's laws.

 

"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the City and County of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards. The Attorney General has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law in the case brought against the state by San Francisco."

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Looking objectively, its pretty straight-forward. 39 states have passed "defense of marriage" laws, but these laws may be unconstitutional, thanks to the 14th Amendment. So inevitably, someone's going to challenge the laws, based on the constitution. Many would liken the SF Mayor's actions to civil disobidience. In any case, this will go through the court system, which was inevitable.

 

I think the gay marriage proponents have the upper hand here. That the religious right for the last year, and now Bush and the Republicans are pushing for a constitutional amendment tells me that the conservatives feel they are on shaky ground.

[Vern Gagne 0]

That's probably because the courts have been ruling against the gay marriage opponents recently.

 

I see this case going all the way to the Supreme Court. Who will overturn the 9th circuit.

[Michrome 0]

Some conservative group in California really needs to start handing out right to carry licenses to everybody.

[Guest Cerebus]

So the mairrages continue but no one's ruled on the legality of the liceneses themselves I believe. And a question for Jobber, do you know if superior court judges are elected by their district in California?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And a question for Jobber, do you know if superior court judges are elected by their district in California?

The California Legislature determines the number of judges in each court. Superior court judges serve six-year terms and are elected by county voters on a nonpartisan ballot at a general election.

 

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/about/aboutsupcts.htm

[Guest Cerebus]

So the San Francisco Superior Court judge (picked by an electorate that had a Green Party canidate far ahead of a Republican for mayor) decided to allow the mairrages to continue? Color me not shocked.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

BIZZOWNED!

 

The Attorney General basically told Arnold to fuck off even though his office plans to do... Something.

 

Governor fears unrest unless same-sex marriages are halted

Schwarzenegger voices concern over potential civil clashes in S.F.

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger turned up the rhetoric against San Francisco's move to allow same-sex marriages, saying on national TV Sunday that he fears outbreaks of serious civil unrest if the ceremonies continue at City Hall.

 

Schwarzenegger said on NBC's "Meet the Press'' that he fears worsening protests about the divisive issue and worries the situation could get out of hand if courts don't quickly stop the marriages, which are being performed in defiance of existing state law.

 

"All of a sudden, we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing. The next thing we know, there is injured or there is dead people. We don't want it to get to that extent,'' the Republican said in his first appearance as governor on a Sunday talk show.

 

A number of protesters were escorted out of San Francisco City Hall on Friday when they tried to disrupt the weddings, but no one was arrested.

 

That same day, the governor ordered state Attorney General Bill Lockyer to go to court to try to stop the marriages as soon as possible. Lockyer -- a Democrat and an independently elected state official -- said he resented the order and said Schwarzenegger had no authority to order him to do anything.

 

However, Lockyer's office has decided to expedite its reply to a lawsuit San Francisco filed last week challenging the laws that forbid same-sex marriage, Hallye Jordan, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said Sunday. She said the reply would probably be filed early this week.

 

"We want a quick resolution of this issue," Jordan said. "We've got 30 days to file, but we're not going to wait. We have every intention of moving quickly because we think it's important for the people of California and for those same-sex couples who have obtained marriage licenses.''

 

She said she was taken aback by Schwarzenegger's comments that there are "riots," "protests" and "people clashing" in San Francisco. She said the attorney general's office knew only of the clashes Friday in which some 25 people blocked the door of the county clerk's office.

 

"We are not aware of any riots or any threat to public safety in San Francisco," Jordan said. "As we have said, if there is violence, we would step in. At this point we see peaceful acts of civil disobedience on both sides. We are unclear as to what the governor is referencing in terms of riots. We urge a toning down of the political rhetoric. This is a complex issue, and we will be dealing with it in the courts."

 

An aide to Mayor Gavin Newsom also denied Sunday there has been any violence surrounding the marriages, which have garnered international publicity. "It's been largely peaceful, and we don't see that changing,'' said spokesman Peter Ragone.

 

San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, speaking Sunday before a reception of some 2,000 people gathered at the Hyatt Regency in San Francisco to celebrate same-sex marriage, said Schwarzenegger owes the city an apology.

 

"His comments were inappropriate and shameful," Leno said. "There were no riots in the street. There was peace, love and commitment."

 

Doretha Flournoy, 43, who attended the reception, said, "What you see is people standing around trying to get into City Hall. If there is any unrest, it's from those folks who don't want to see us get married."

 

Schwarzenegger praised Newsom as a "reasonable guy. He's a wonderful mayor.'' But he criticized the mayor for allowing the same-sex ceremonies. "We cannot have mayors all of a sudden go hand out licenses for various things. In the next city, it'll be handing out licenses for assault weapons. In the next, it'll be someone handing them out to sell drugs.''

 

He and others, including California's two Democratic senators, have also suggested that Newsom should have gone to court first to get a ruling on California's marriage laws before starting to allow same-sex marriages in the city.

 

But Ragone said that argument doesn't wash. "There's a big difference between handing out AK-47s and marriage licenses. And this issue is in the courts, precisely the way it is supposed to work,'' he said.

 

Newsom, appearing on CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday, defended his decision against critics, saying he has an obligation to fairness.

 

"It's about human beings," he said. "It's about human dignity. It's about advancing and affirming marriage in a unique bond and relationship. It's about, I think, holding truth, faith and allegiance to the constitution."

 

San Francisco has issued more than 3,000 same-sex marriage licenses since Feb. 12. After more than a week of block-long lines, the city is now issuing the licenses by appointment only. A judge has given San Francisco until March 29 to explain its actions in court.

 

Schwarzenegger went out of his way Sunday to appear conciliatory toward Lockyer, whose office is responsible for defending the state against San Francisco's claim that the gay marriage ban violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

 

"Maybe there's a little sensitivity in the office where he feels the governor should not push him,'' Schwarzenegger said of Lockyer.

 

At the National Governors Association meeting in Washington, the first the new governor is attending, he was asked about his relations with Lockyer, who on Saturday had called Schwarzenegger's order preposterous.

 

"We're straightening it out now with Attorney General Bill Lockyer. He's on it. Everything is going in the right direction,'' Schwarzenegger said.

 

LOL. Sometimes, I love this state. Riots? Ahh-nold, you so silly.

 

Another Lockyer quote not mentioned here:

"The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next Terminator 4 movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do."

[Guest Cerebus]

Wait the attorney general doesn't have to follow the governor's orders in California? How the fuck does anything get done...oh wait.

[Firestarter 0]

"The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next Terminator 4 movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do."

Man, I'd think twice about mouthing off to the Governator that way...

 

Wait the attorney general doesn't have to follow the governor's orders in California? How the fuck does anything get done...oh wait.

Yeah, good point - it is California.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Well, Bush is on TV now openly declaring his support of an amendment to ban gay marriage.

 

This is foul and a waste of the nation's time. "Activist courts have left the people with one recourse" my ass. It's a shallow and disgusting bid for votes, and it's obscene.

[Firestarter 0]

I think it's the only thing left to do, frankly. The courts have way overstepped their bounds.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Man, I'd think twice about mouthing off to the Governator that way...

What's he gonna do? Pump him up? Tt's been 100 days now. The first few days had some action and then..... ?

 

 

And that Collectinator stuff was Bullshit. He hasn't pulled a dime out of President Bush and his compadres in Washington. Suprise, suprise.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think it's the only thing left to do, frankly. The courts have way overstepped their bounds.

Oh, poo. The current federal law says it's left up to states. Fine.

 

What's going on right now is a state issue. Bush has no interest in the DOMA, about as much as he wanted to talk to the UN, he just wants to go ahead and mess with the Constitution.