Calif. Court Voids S.F. Same-Sex Marriages

[EdwardKnoxII 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rriage_calif_10

 

Calif. Court Voids S.F. Same-Sex Marriages

 

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

 

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

 

The court said the city violated the law when it issued the certificates, since both legislation and a voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.

 

The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages peformed between Feb. 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.

 

The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolic value. Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco.

 

"Del is 83 years old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time."

 

The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on whether local officials could bypass state judicial and legislative branches.

 

Chief Justice Ronald George noted that Thursday's ruling doesn't address "the substantive legal rights of same sex couples. In actuality, the legal issue before us implicates the interest of all individuals in ensuring that public officials execute their official duties in a manner that respects the limits of the authorities granted to them as officeholders."

 

Anti-gay-marriage groups hailed the ruling, saying Mayor Gavin Newsom had acted "too fast, too soon."

 

"Instead of helping his cause, Mayor Newsom has set back the same-sex marriage agenda and laid the foundation for the pro-marriage movement to once and for all win this battle to preserve traditional marriage," said Mathew Staver, who represents Campaign for California Families in a lawsuit challenging the San Francisco marriages.

 

The justices agreed to resolve the legality of the weddings sanctioned by Newsom after emergency petitions were filed by conservative interest groups and the state's top law enforcement official, Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

 

San Francisco's gay weddings, which followed a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage — prompted President Bush to push for changing the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, an effort that has become campaign fodder this election year.

 

The California court sided with Lockyer's arguments, ruling that Newsom's actions would foment legal anarchy and sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers.

 

When the justices agreed in March to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge — that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution — if such a lawsuit worked its way to the justices through the lower courts.

 

Gay and lesbian couples immediately acted on that invitation, suing in San Francisco County Superior Court alleging laws barring them from marrying were discriminatory. Mayor Newsom filed a similar lawsuit.

 

The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter, and have left the politically volatile issue to its Supreme Court.

 

Newsom argued to the justices in May that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. Newsom authorized the marriages by citing the California Constitution's ban against discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than state laws banning gay marriage.

 

The Arizona-based Christian law firm Alliance Defense Fund, a plaintiff in one of two cases the justices decided Thursday, had told the justices that Newsom's "act of disobedience" could lead other local officials to sanction "polygamists."

 

Newsom's defiance of state law created huge lines at City Hall by gays and lesbians waiting to be married, and ignited a firestorm engulfing statehouses and ballot boxes nationwide.

 

Missouri voters this month endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — a move designed to prevent that state's judiciary from agreeing with the arguments Newsom is making in California.

 

A state constitutional challenge by gays in Massachusetts prompted that state's highest court to endorse the gay marriages that began there in May. A judge in Washington state this month also ruled in favor of gay marriage, pending a resolution from that state's top court.

 

Louisiana residents are to vote on the same issue Sept. 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.

 

Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Paging the Ninth Circuit...

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Is anyone surprised? Bueller? Bueller?

 

Anyways, the Ninth Circuit will run the end-around, saying that California violated civil rights by terminating an illegal (then) decree that went against the state Constitution.

 

More legal fun...because, the Ninth doesn't do enough of that...

 

--Ryan

...It's California, of course something's gonna be crazy...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Four states — Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada — already have similar amendments in their constitutions.

Ugh. And to think that I've been trying to move there, too.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I'm awaiting Supreme Court Goodness...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

SCOTUS?

 

I think most prefer leaving this up to states. Even though states are adopting bans faster and faster, I know I still do.

[Justice 0]

SCOTUS?

 

I think most prefer leaving this up to states. Even though states are adopting bans faster and faster, I know I still do.

Well, frankly, the Gay Rights Movement is just itching to take it to Federal Court and end it once and for all, for better or for worse.