Lockyer rejects halt to nuptials He dismisses governor's as a political ploy (CA RATS ALERT)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 2/21/04 | Nanett Asimov & Ryan Kim

[.30Carbine]

...the issue of gay marriage should not be decided by unelected courts and that the issue should be decided by the political branches of government.

The issue was already decided, by the appropriate 'branch of government,' the PEOPLE. Four years ago the people of California voted in favor of Proposition 22 by 61%, a ballot initiative that said: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

The Constitution of the state of California places the burden of law enforcement upon the Governor in Article 5, Section 1: "The supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor. The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully executed."

The courts have no role in this controversy except hearing testimony to the charges against the SF mayor and the AG that they have failed to do their duty in upholding the law.

Both Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and President George W. Bush understand that this is an issue of the rule of law.

"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," President Bush has said.

"Our civilized society and legal system is based upon a respect for and adherence to the rule of law. The City and County of San Francisco's unfortunate choice to disregard state law and grant marriage certificates to gay couples directly undermines this fundamental guarantee," Governor Schwarzenegger has written.

The AG has followed the lead of the SF mayor in openly defying the will of the people, the law of the land, and the orders of the state's chief law enforcement officer.

It's time to clean house.

[Scenic Sounds]

Which it did: the state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is one of the problems that helps make this so confusing to people. It is commonly thought and widely reported by some media that Proposition 22 (the "California Defense of Marriage Act") amended the state constitution. Actually, as you can see, it just amended the Family Code.

Like any other provision of the Family Code, it is subject to attack if it is deemed inconsistent with the state constitution. Had Proposition 22 amended the state constitution (as many people seem to think), this problem would be far less complicated. ;-)

[Scenic Sounds]

See post 382 as to the effect of Proposition 22. The issue is whether Section 308.5 of the Family Code (the "Defense of Marriage Act") is inconsistent with the state's constitutional equal protection clause.

Article V, Section 7 of the California Constitution provides:

"The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law."

Apparently, Arnold has chosen not to send in the militia. His alternative is to litigate the constitutional issue in the courts.

[Torie]

File a motion to bounce him as the advocate for the state in this litigation because he refuses to act. Just a guess. Lockyer is acting on defending the SF suit apparently, but not on initiating a suit. We shall see if he files a cross complaint against SF and the mayor.

In any event, this is all political threater. The litigation will move foward.

[Brian Allen]

I guess our State's dims are realy slow learners and weren't paying attention when we put the Grayout.

Recall, anyone?

Watched the current squatter and bemanurer of the sin FRancisco mayor's office interviewed by Russert a while ago. What an un-and-anti-American thin-blue-lipped evil bastard that one is. And to think San FRancisco was once arguably our nation's most beautiful city.

God deliver us FRom evil.

God save our state.

God save our Nation.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Recall seems in order!

[onyx]

My thanks to both of you.

The democrats have stepped in a quick-sand version of deep doo-doo on this one, and I love it.

[longtermmemmory]

If he has to fight a recall campaign over this, every hollyweird actor and actress who donates will be exposed as a potential homosexual. Their much guarded "lifestyles" will be exposed and their box offices may suffer. What would Hollywood choose, profits or a politician.

[longtermmemmory]

If that is the case then the homosexual judge intends to duplicate the liberal Mass opinion.

It is a set up.

CF judges are not to be trusted.

[pogo101]

(re graphic) That may be appropriate for the Mass. Supremes and for the two SF trial-court judges in Cal. ... but not for "the California judiciary" as a whole, and certainly not for the Cal. Supremes, who are, if not exactly conservative, certainly not LIBERAL in the Massachusetts sense.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Gay Marriage is Anarchy

[livius]

Thanks for the explanation! (Re: Prop 22) I hadn't realized that.

[BibChr]

I'd say "Queer marriage — the ultimate oxymoron."

Dan

[onyx]

Me too. An abomination. Does not merit discussion. Damn them.

[claudiustg]

Did any major news outlets even report this story? All I heard were some blurbs saying that the AG would shut down the illegal marriages soon.

[onyx]

I haven't heard one peep about this on any news cast today.

Have you Dan?

[blackbart1]

What a disappointment! Can you say "RECALL"?

[BibChr]

Haven't followed much today; we'll see tomorrow.

But I'm not too hopeful.

Dan

[onyx]

The news here is ALL about our rain. LOL!