California: Gay marriage flap [city altered marriage license form, so state may not recognize it]

Daniel Weintraub weblog ^ | February 17, 2004 | Daniel Weintraub

[John Jorsett]

All eyes are on San Francisco, where the city spent the holiday weekend issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and where a legal challenge to the action will be heard in court today. The Chronicle reports here that the marraiges could face an unexpected administrative hurdle as well: the state won't recognize marriage licenses not recorded on an official state-approved form, and San Francisco altered theirs to accommodate same-sex couples. At some point, this suggests, the governor might have to weigh in. Mayor Newsom is defying state constitution's guarantee of equal protection overrides Proposition 22, the voter-approved measure that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.

[John Jorsett]

Here's the relevant passage from the article that Weintraub linked:

Aside from the court challenges, another wrinkle has emerged that could mar the status of the San Francisco licenses: State officials indicated Friday that the modified marriage forms that will eventually be sent from San Francisco to Sacramento would simply be returned without being officially registered.

California registers only couples whose marriages are documented on the standard-issue official state form. Therefore, San Francisco's move to change marriage license documents to make them gender-neutral may make them invalid.

[Puppage]

How about aside from the the fact that it's ILLEGAL!

[Mr Spock]

California, is by far, the craziest state in the union. They sure know how to provide good shows :).

[So Cal Rocket]

Arnold needs to send in the California National Guard to block the SF Courthouse in order to prevent these illegal acts from occuring.

[johnb838]

Followed closely by Washington, Massachussetts, and New Mexico.

[Howlin]

Well, what is the purpose of all this then?

[John Jorsett]

Well, what is the purpose of all this then?

To get Gavin Newsom lots of gay supporters. He was the "conservative" candidate in San Fran, and wasn't supported by gay groups. My take is that this is a stunt to endear him to gay and gay-friendly voters. It also gets him noticed by the entire country, which would help if he has aspirations for higher office.

[Howlin]

But the marriages obviously aren't legal, so what is THEIR purposes in getting married?

Are they going to come back "home" somewhere like here in North Carolina and try to sue the state so they can be recongized?

Is this a backdoor way to try to get this done?

[John Jorsett]

But the marriages obviously aren't legal, so what is THEIR purposes in getting married?

I imagine the motives vary with the individuals. Some probably want to be married to their loved one, some probably want to stick a thumb in the eye of the people who oppose gay marriage. One question I'd like to see asked is, "If you were this interested in being married, why didn't you go to Vermont, where it was already legal?"

[Ronin]

It's certainly going to be tried. If not in North Carolina, than somewhere else. And, sadly, I think that unless a constitutional amendment is passed, it's going to work.

The is the camel's nose under the tent.

[tuesday afternoon]

One question I'd like to see asked is, "If you were this interested in being married, why didn't you go to Vermont, where it was already legal?"

I don't believe Vermont civil unions have been recognized outside that state, although there have been court cases filed to that effect.

[mtnjimmy]

the appearance of marriage gives a false sense of acceptability. these people want to be accepted in spite of their sin.

[tuesday afternoon]

these people want to be accepted in spite of their sin.

Then religion must be the last frontier. How can homosexuality be a civil right when it necessitates the denial of freedom of religion and association?

Over in Ontario, where the Progressive Conservative Party is in power, Scott Brockie is the conscientious born-again Christian owner of a Toronto print shop. After refusing a request from gay rights activist Ray Brilliger to print material for the Canadian Lesbians and Gay Archives, Mr. Brockie found himself hauled before the Ontario Human Rights Board of Inquiry - the Ontario counterpart to the Saskatchewan board that had fined Hugh Owens $1500. The Death of Canadian Democracy and the Birth of Judicial Unilateralism

Portents of things to come.