California's top court blocks gay marriages

[jfinn]

It was bound to happen, but still it doesn't make me happy.
Jayne


CNN.com

California's top court blocks gay marriages


SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco, delivering a victory to conservatives who have fought for a month to block the ceremonies.

The court did not rule on the legality of gay marriages, and justices indicated they would decide in the coming months whether San Francisco's mayor had the authority to allow the weddings.

The dispute began February 12, when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his administration to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A steady stream of gay couples from around the country have traveled to be married at City Hall, just a block from the Supreme Court. More than 3,700 couples having tied the knot in San Francisco so far.

The action by California's highest court came two weeks after state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a conservative group asked the seven justices to immediately block the gay marriages.

The justices ruled unanimously that Newsom must "refrain from issuing marriage licenses or certificates not authorized" by California marriage laws.

"They restored order to chaos in San Francisco," said Joshua Carden, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.

Newsom's spokesman, Peter Ragone, said the city would comply with the ruling as soon as officials receive the order.

Jon Davidson, an attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights legal aid group, said the ruling simply puts the issue on hold for now.

"The court has put everything on pause rather than stop," he said. "They are saying that until we hear this, you are on pause."

Had the court declined to intervene, the legal battle over gay marriage in California would have taken years as gay marriage lawsuits traveled through the state's lower courts.

Newsom's defiance of California law prompted several other cities across the country to follow suit, and President George W. Bush last month said he would back a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

The California court's action came as Massachusetts lawmakers reconvened Thursday to consider a ban on gay marriage. They gave preliminary approval to a proposal that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions.

Massachusetts' highest court ruled in November that it was unconstitutional to prevent gays from marrying -- a ruling that sparked a legislative scramble to amend the state constitution.

In statehouses nationwide, lawmakers are scrutinizing their constitutions to see if they could be construed to permit same-sex marriages, even in states where laws now bar them.

Lockyer and the Alliance Defense Fund said the court's action was urgently needed because thousands of newly married gays might otherwise think they enjoy the same rights granted other married couples -- such as the right to receive the other spouse's property in the absence of a will.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't know why anyone ever doubted it. As I posted in another thread, no court will ever uphold the right of a municipality to act in defiance of a state law. It would lead to utter anarchy.

San Farancisco knew it. Their A-hole mayor knew it. And their lawyer did too.

It's the most disgraceful political grandstanding at the cost of causing untold emotion pain I have ever witnessed. He ought to be hung in chains.

-Colly

 

[kellycummings]

I don't know why anyone ever doubted it. As I posted in another thread, no court will ever uphold the right of a municipality to act in defiance of a state law. It would lead to utter anarchy.

San Farancisco knew it. Their A-hole mayor knew it. And their lawyer did too.

It's the most disgraceful political grandstanding at the cost of causing untold emotion pain I have ever witnessed. He ought to be hung in chains.

-Colly

I don't know about hanging him in chains but I agree that people had to see this coming and that the mayor, regardless of his intentions, was wrong for defying the state law.
It's not over yet, we'll see what happens.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I don't know about hanging him in chains but I agree that people had to see this coming and that the mayor, regardless of his intentions, was wrong for defying the state law.
It's not over yet, we'll see what happens.

His intention was to assure himself of the gay vote in one of the few cities in this country where it is a significant enough majority to be important. The fact that there are a few thousand couples who went to bed last night thinking they were married and must now deal with going to be tonight knowing they aren't means not a damned thing to him. It was utterly heartless and contemptible political grandstanding and for the pain he caused I hope he rots in hell.

-Colly

 

[kellycummings]

His intention was to assure himself of the gay vote in one of the few cities in this country where it is a significant enough majority to be important. The fact that there are a few thousand couples who went to bed last night thinking they were married and must now deal with going to be tonight knowing they aren't means not a damned thing to him. It was utterly heartless and contemptible political grandstanding and for the pain he caused I hope he rots in hell.

-Colly

It's not over yet though. The court didn't say the marriages weren't legal, just that they had to stop. The might let the marriages stand, you never know. I hope that they do but I think it's very doubtful. Also, the people who got married knew this was going to happen sooner or later so I don't think they are too devastated by it just yet.
I totally understand your feelings about this and I do think the mayor was wrong but I guess my feelings towards him aren't as strong.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It's not over yet though. The court didn't say the marriages weren't legal, just that they had to stop. The might let the marriages stand, you never know. I hope that they do but I think it's very doubtful. Also, the people who got married knew this was going to happen sooner or later so I don't think they are too devastated by it just yet.
I totally understand your feelings about this and I do think the mayor was wrong but I guess my feelings towards him aren't as strong.

Probably not. The marriages are null though as the state law defines marriage as a man and woman. What infuriates me is they knew well before hand this would be the result. I saw the briefs, the litigator for San Francisco actually walked in to court to argue that a municipality had the right to ignore state law if they felt it denied citizens their civil rights.

They didn't even attempt to win. That proves to me they didn't even want the marriages to succeed, they just wanted it to LOOK like they did. If they had really given a damn they would have challenged the legality of the state law on constitutional grounds. Instead they went in their with an argument even *I* couldn't have upheld and I want to see those couples legally married. But no judge, in any jurisdiction, under any circumstances, is going to uphold the rights of a municipality to blatantly contridict state law.

-Colly

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't know why anyone ever doubted it. As I posted in another thread, no court will ever uphold the right of a municipality to act in defiance of a state law. It would lead to utter anarchy.

San Farancisco knew it. Their A-hole mayor knew it. And their lawyer did too.

It's the most disgraceful political grandstanding at the cost of causing untold emotion pain I have ever witnessed. He ought to be hung in chains.

-Colly

Hanging him chains would be excessive but the mayor was strictly grandstanding. He knows with absolute certainty that he was overstepping his authority. Like it or not and, for the record, I don't, marriage in California is limited to between men and women only. A majority voted for this limitation a few years ago and it is the law. This law is not contrary to the US constitution and I am reasonably sure it is not contrary to the state constitution either. Either it has never been tested, which I doubt, or it was upheld.

I'm not sure what the mayor was trying to do. He will probably be elected to Congress from one of the SF districts but he will probably never win any statewide offices.

One result that will probably occur is a series of lawsuits from the couples that will contend they were married in SF and will demand whatever benefits that may mean. These will be nuisance lawsuits at best.

 

[Remec]

marriage in California is limited to between men and women only. A majority voted for this limitation a few years ago and it is the law. This law is not contrary to the US constitution and I am reasonably sure it is not contrary to the state constitution either. Either it has never been tested, which I doubt, or it was upheld.

I'm not sure what the mayor was trying to do.

One of the last articles I read about the whole thing in California, said that the mayor was doing this to bring about a challenge to the law. Apparently, no one had done this yet.

There are a number of laws throughout the country that only really are on the books because no one has come forth to be the test case that challenges whether or not the law is viable.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

One of the last articles I read about the whole thing in California, said that the mayor was doing this to bring about a challenge to the law. Apparently, no one had done this yet.

There are a number of laws throughout the country that only really are on the books because no one has come forth to be the test case that challenges whether or not the law is viable.

It was my understanding that the California law has already survived judicial review. If it has or has not, the city did not attempt to test the validity of the law constitionally. That is not what they walked into court and said. Had that been thier tac, then I would not be so inervated.

-Colly

 

[Boxlicker101]

I just heard on the television in the next room that the Supreme Court will take up the issue in May or June. They have already ordered a halt to the marriages but this will determine the legality of the ones already performed and will trest the constitutionality of the law prohibiting them. I have my doubts that the federal courts will even hear any appeals since they will consider this to be a state issue although I could very well be wrong about that.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I just heard on the television in the next room that the Supreme Court will take up the issue in May or June. They have already ordered a halt to the marriages but this will determine the legality of the ones already performed and will trest the constitutionality of the law prohibiting them. I have my doubts that the federal courts will even hear any appeals since they will consider this to be a state issue although I could very well be wrong about that.

Theoretically the federal courts could hear an appeal based on the law possibly denying someone their 14th amendment civilrights.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

[No message]

 

[sweetnpetite]

Even though it's wrong, I think it would be cool if a *bunch* of cities around the country just started doing it. It would be kind of like 'civil disobedience' for cities instead of people, a sort of mass protest. Maybe it wouldn't hold up, but it *would* make a strong statement. PLus, if lots of cities did it, it would get too cumbersom to legally fight, or it would tie up the courts and people would realize how fighting gay marriage really pales in comparison to real problems (not the die hards, the people on the fence, the 'swing vote' or whatever) Before too long, the govt would realize that it's easier to just let people marry who they want. I think it could work.

It may not be legal, but neither were lunch counter sit ins, or rufusing to go to the back of the bus, or any other number of 'peaceful' protests during the sixties.


Sometimes you gotta bend the rules to get things done. Is there a 'gay marriage day' or anything like that? Couples accross the country could have there ceremonies- even if they weren't legally binding- in order to show solidarity.

 

[minsue]

Just to lighten the thread for a moment, I just found this going through Tonight Show 'Headlines' web page:

http://www.nbc.com/nbc/The_Tonight_Show_with_Jay_Leno/headlines/H_2667/H_2667_34.jpg

I don't know about the rest of you, but I needed a laugh on this subject to keep my head from exploding due to pent up anger.

- Mindy

 

[Boxlicker101]

Even though it's wrong, I think it would be cool if a *bunch* of cities around the country just started doing it. It would be kind of like 'civil disobedience' for cities instead of people, a sort of mass protest. Maybe it wouldn't hold up, but it *would* make a strong statement. PLus, if lots of cities did it, it would get too cumbersom to legally fight, or it would tie up the courts and people would realize how fighting gay marriage really pales in comparison to real problems (not the die hards, the people on the fence, the 'swing vote' or whatever) Before too long, the govt would realize that it's easier to just let people marry who they want. I think it could work.

It may not be legal, but neither were lunch counter sit ins, or rufusing to go to the back of the bus, or any other number of 'peaceful' protests during the sixties.


Sometimes you gotta bend the rules to get things done. Is there a 'gay marriage day' or anything like that? Couples accross the country could have there ceremonies- even if they weren't legally binding- in order to show solidarity.

It would be cool but it will also never happen in any volume. I believe the city of Santa Cruz has tried to follow the lead of SF and San Jose is recognizing the gay marriages of city employees but this will not be any kind of a major groundswell. San Francisco is unique amont cities in Cal because it is also a county and the official name is "The City and County of San Francisco. Every other city in the state is part of a county, and it is the counties that issue marriage licenses. In other words, with the one exception, cities are not in the business of authorizing marriages and county employees will not do something so contrary to their instructions, and the law, as issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. I think the situation is the same in most, maybe all cities in the country.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'm all for gay people having the same rights as straight people, but what is the big deal about marriage, anyway? Instead of making a big rockus about who gets to marry who, I say we should concentrate on making civil unions as accepted and respected as marriages, in every aspect.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It would be cool but it will also never happen in any volume. I believe the city of Santa Cruz has tried to follow the lead of SF and San Jose is recognizing the gay marriages of city employees but this will not be any kind of a major groundswell. San Francisco is unique amont cities in Cal because it is also a county and the official name is "The City and County of San Francisco. Every other city in the state is part of a county, and it is the counties that issue marriage licenses. In other words, with the one exception, cities are not in the business of authorizing marriages and county employees will not do something so contrary to their instructions, and the law, as issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. I think the situation is the same in most, maybe all cities in the country.

Actually, the Mayor of New Paltz here in NY was doing the same for a few days. He was ordered to halt by a court order on the grounds he wasn't executing his vows to perform his office faithfully.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

I'm all for gay people having the same rights as straight people, but what is the big deal about marriage, anyway? Instead of making a big rockus about who gets to marry who, I say we should concentrate on making civil unions as accepted and respected as marriages, in every aspect.

I used to feel that way, as well, until I heard a Mass. legislator speak. She spoke of growing up in the south being 'separate, but equal'. She broke into tears, and took me with her, as she eloquently explained that she will NEVER pass a law to create another 'separate, but equal' group by allowing marraige for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals. I had not looked at it in a parallel to segregation before I heard her speech. I stopped advocating civil unions as a stepping stone towards equality then and there.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I don't mean that marriages should be for heteros and civil unions for gays - I mean we should ALL have civil unions, instead of marriages!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm all for gay people having the same rights as straight people, but what is the big deal about marriage, anyway? Instead of making a big rockus about who gets to marry who, I say we should concentrate on making civil unions as accepted and respected as marriages, in every aspect.

I personally wish that gay rights activists had concentrated on getting civil unions accepted in most states on a state by state basis before they started calling for marriage. The word marriage has strong meaning for many americans and while I feel strongly that gays should be able to enjoy all the benefits and meanings of the word and the union, I strongly believe this country isn't ready for that.

I really fear that the result of trying to cram gay marriage down the throats of a largely unwilling populace will produce a strong backlash that could well lead to an ammendment that forever denies us the possibility.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

I don't mean that marriages should be for heteros and civil unions for gays - I mean we should ALL have civil unions, instead of marriages!

That I agree with wholeheartedly, but it wouldn't fly here. Look at the vitriol that spews whenever the topic of religion being removed from government comes up. The marraige liscense given by the government IS for a civil union in all but name, but that doesn't matter to most people.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I refuse to get re-married. I will live with my dear Hubby, fuck him, shop food together with him, raise our kids together with him, and sit down each February to fill in our tax return papers together with him.
I just won't go through with that dress-and-cake ceremony. It's a matter of principles.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I refuse to get re-married. I will live with my dear Hubby, fuck him, shop food together with him, raise our kids together with him, and sit down each February to fill in our tax return papers together with him.
I just won't go through with that dress-and-cake ceremony. It's a matter of principles.

Some of us still hold on to our little girl fantasy of the formal church wedding, pretty dress and all of the rest. You have chosen not to do it again and that's fine for you. Just remember some of us haven't even had the opportuinty to try it once and make a decision.

-Colly

 

[minsue]

I refuse to get re-married. I will live with my dear Hubby, fuck him, shop food together with him, raise our kids together with him, and sit down each February to fill in our tax return papers together with him.
I just won't go through with that dress-and-cake ceremony. It's a matter of principles.

I never did the dress-and-cake ceremony. Got married in jeans & a tank top. It was completely worth the hell we took from our families for eloping. I'm pretty sure they've forgiven us by now, too.

That's one of the things that bothers me so very much about the fact that same sex couples are not allowed to marry. I married my husband 1 month & 3 days after our first kiss. The man who performed the ceremony obviously thought it was a joke and yet, while he made his displeasure known through the tone of his voice, he performed it anyway. Yet a same sex couple who have been in a relationship for years cannot marry. I simply cannot fathom it.

 

[minsue]

Some of us still hold on to our little girl fantasy of the formal church wedding, pretty dress and all of the rest. You have chosen not to do it again and that's fine for you. Just remember some of us haven't even had the opportuinty to try it once and make a decision.

-Colly