Wrong Form May Invalidate Calif Same-Sex Marriages

Reuters ^ | 2.18.04 | Spencer Swartz

[mhking]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California will not accept the marriage licenses granted to thousands of same-sex couples in San Francisco because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom," a state official said on Wednesday.

"There is a statewide form that every county has to use for marriage applications. If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them," said Nicole Kasabian Evans, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Agency.

Meanwhile, President Bush joined a chorus of those opposing San Francisco's nearly week-long experiment in allowing gay marriages, a practice condemned on Tuesday night by California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Evans said her agency, which processes all state marriage license applications that become state records, would return the forms if the city sent them in -- but she admitted that the issue will really be decided in the courts because the weddings violate a state law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Nancy Lafaro, director of the San Francisco County Clerk's office, said the marriage license applications gay and lesbian couples in San Francisco have filled out since last Thursday were changed. "For example, instead of saying bride or groom, the form in San Francisco says applicant one and applicant two," she said.

Lafaro added the same-sex marriage application form also uses the terms "unmarried individuals" rather than "unmarried man" or "unmarried woman.

EQUAL PROTECTION STANCE

About 2,600 gay and lesbian couples have been married since Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed same-sex marriages on grounds that homosexuals have the right to wed under the state's equal protection clause.

Same-sex marriages, however, defy Proposition 22, a law approved in 2000 by California voters, that restricts marriage to heterosexual couples. The measure passed with support from about 60 percent of those who voted on the initiative.

President Bush on Wednesday told reporters in Washington he was "troubled" by San Francisco's same-sex marriages.

"I have consistently stated that I'll support (a) law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And, obviously, these events are influencing my decision," Bush said in his first public comments on the city's same-sex marriages.

On Tuesday night, Schwarzenegger said he supported California's domestic partnership laws but called on San Francisco to obey Prop. 22.

"Californians spoke on the issue of same-sex marriage when they overwhelmingly approved California's law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. I support that law and encourage San Francisco officials to obey that law. The courts should act quickly to resolve this matter," he said.

Gay and lesbian couples continued to roll into San Francisco city hall on Wednesday to exchange wedding vows a day after two California state judges refused to issue temporary restraining orders to halt the practice California Superior Court Judge James Warren asked San Francisco to "cease and desist" from issuing more marriage licenses but agreed to let city lawyers argue on March 29 why it should be allowed to wed gay and lesbian couples.

A second California judge, Robert Evans Quidachay, on Tuesday delayed a hearing until Friday on another lawsuit challenging the decision to allow same-sex marriages. (Additional reporting by Adam Entous)

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

because the city created its own form to remove such terms as "bride" and "groom,"

For men they replaced it with "pitcher" and "catcher."
For lesbians they put "takes out the trash" and "submissive."

[Mike Darancette]

Get the attention of the media. (or not?) Leftists were always good at this game.

Just the picture of an old queen and a 16 year old boy holding up a marriage license would make the headlines -- guaranteed.

[CommandoFrank]

Illegal is illegal,

That depends on what the meaning of 'illegal' is...

If illegal is illegal, then it's legal...

[mrs tiggywinkle]

**So they found a technicality. Apparently the violation of the law regarding California's legal definition of marriage wasn't enough. **

bingo.

[sd-joe]

the form in San Francisco says applicant one and applicant two

Applicant one -- How romantic.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Interesting idea. I prefer to think of them as merely breaking the obvious law in this case. The rest makes my head hurt, I'm afraid.

[pooh fan]

Ya, right. This is the same state that wants driver licenses issued to illegal aliens. The squashed SB 60 after Arnie was put in place and now the next generation SB 1160. I'm embarrassed to say I'm a native Californian.

[Victoria Delsoul]

"There is a statewide form that every county has to use for marriage applications. If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them," said Nicole Kasabian Evans, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Agency.

LOL, not only the form is wrong but also the sex.

[Republican Wildcat]

Oops--can't have a wedding without a bride and groom, can't have a marriage without a husband and wife. Who would have thought?

[Cicero]

Well, at least this bureaucrat is on the right side of the matter, refusing to accept the licenses as valid. Much better than the judge who refused to accept a suit against the gay marriage licenses because he objected to a semicolon.

[philetus]

If we receive application forms that are different from the single form used throughout the state, we will not accept them"


You can't accept them anyway if they don't have a man and a woman listed on them.

[buffman]

There was no way they could use the designated form in this situation. This is hilarious.

[Drango]

It would take a lot of chuzpah, but conservatives should take two 12-year-old and fifteen-year-old sisters and insist on being 'married'. An old man of 70 and a young boy of 16 and insist on being 'married'....

Some guy should take a goat in a tutu...

[ApplegateRanch]

Gee, will the city REFUND the illegally collected fees?Bwaaahahahaha!

I just can't stop wondering just how much the city DOE$ manage to rake in with this????

[Victoria Delsoul]

It sure is. I just hope it becomes reality.

[John Jorsett]

It would be interesting to show up there as two brothers or two sisters and demand to be married. I'm betting the law, while prohibiting brother and sister marriages, doesn't address the formerly unthinkable possibility of same-sex sibilings.

[Paleo Conservative]

Sounds like someone should go to jail for FRAUD!! =o)

I doubt a jury in San Franciso would convict.

[Paleo Conservative]

At something like $104 a pop for those "licenses," San Francisco made a tidy bundle from the 2300 or so "marriages."

I think the Mayor ought to be fined ten times as much for each violation.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping --- the historic phrase that comes to my mind and lips is this:

Nanny Nanny Boo Boo!!

Let me know if you want on/off this ping list!

[LearnsFromMistakes]

Wasnt there a thread a few days ago, the crux was that there was a semi-colon in the wrong place in some text. Onthat technicality, the judge was trying to say this whole uni-gender marriage thing was acceptable. Touche...