Besides the weddings in San Francisco, the highest court in Massachusetts has issued a ruling ordering the state to recognize marriages between homosexuals.See...
Posted on 02/23/2004 1:47:28 PM PST by knak
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's attorney general predicted on Monday that the courts would bar same-sex marriages in San Francisco within weeks and invalidate the thousands of gay marriages the city has sanctioned over the past two weeks.
"I think it will be weeks and my best prediction is that the marriages will be invalidated, the courts will direct people that wish to change the law to the legislative process," Bill Lockyer, the Democratic attorney general, told Reuters in a telephone interview.
Over the past 10 days, San Francisco has issued marriage licenses to 3,175 homosexual couples, prompting euphoria in the gay community and criticism from backers of traditional male-female nuptials.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has criticized the marriages and asked Lockyer to resolve the issue immediately.
"I believe strongly in the law that we have right now in California which respects domestic partnership rights and I think that that's a very good law," the former action film star said in Washington. "I believe in equal rights absolutely and in protecting that."
Lockyer was expected to present legal arguments against the same-sex marriages within a day or two. San Francisco has sued California, saying the state's marriage laws violate the state constitution's provisions on equality.
"My duty is very clear. It is to defend the state law," said Lockyer, a possible rival to Republican Schwarzenegger in the 2006 gubernatorial election. "We're going to respond to their lawsuit which they filed late last week."
POLL FINDS HALF OF STATE OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE
California law, backed most recently by a voter initiative in 2000, defines marriage as a union of man and woman. A Public Policy Institute of California poll of 2,004 Californian adults released on Friday found that exactly half opposed gay marriage and 44 percent approved.
At San Francisco City Hall, which had become a scene of celebration since newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom gave a green light to same-sex weddings earlier this month, the atmosphere was more muted on Monday as officials went back to requiring appointments for marriage licenses.
Only 56 appointments are granted per day, following a week in which officials said they had recorded the most marriages in recent San Francisco history. Frustrated applicants reported difficulty making appointments by telephone.
It remains unclear what legal weight the San Francisco marriage licenses would carry. The state's Department of Vital Records, which logs births, deaths and marriages, has said it will not accept the gay marriage certificates.
"This is deeply meaningful for us personally; we've been together for about 20 years now," said Carole Migden, a member of California's Board of Equalization, a tax collection agency, who got married on Friday. "It's a pivotal time in history."
Advocates for same-sex marriages have won initial legal skirmishes by blocking efforts to obtain an injunction against the marriages.
Gay weddings have been a hot-button U.S. political issue in recent weeks. Besides the weddings in San Francisco, the highest court in Massachusetts has issued a ruling ordering the state to recognize marriages between homosexuals.
Besides the weddings in San Francisco, the highest court in Massachusetts has issued a ruling ordering the state to recognize marriages between homosexuals.See...
Newsom's pandering to the gays on this transfers a significant chunk of Gonzalez' support to Newsom, and so pretty much protects Newsom from a re-election challenge in 2007. It also gives Newsom much-needed support when he runs for statewide office in 2010-2012.
Victory in the California Democratic primary for any statewide office is a reasonable guarantee of winning the general election too, because California's GOP has been captured by true fruitcakes who consistently defeat any GOP primary candidate who might win the general election. Arnold Schwarzenegger could not have won a statewide GOP primary for any office as a non-incumbent - his only shot was the recall and he took it.
Which means Newsom's sale of fake marriage licenses to gays is a can't lose situation for him. It (a) heads off the worst threat to his re-election as mayor; (b) gives him a major leg-up when he runs for statewide office; (c) adds a cool million dollars to the San Francisco treasury in exchange for worthless pieces of paper; and (d) won't actually result in any valid marriages because the licenses are both illegal and use an improper form even if they were otherwise legal.
It's a rip-off of gays and gets Newsom's name in the news. What more could a California politician ask for?
If anyone wants on/off this list, pingify me!
Meanwhile, back in the great state of California, someone remains unclear on the concept:
It remains unclear what legal weight the San Francisco marriage licenses would carry. The state's Department of Vital Records, which logs births, deaths and marriages, has said it will not accept the gay marriage certificates.
Seems crystal clear to me, how 'bout you?
Void ab initio!
Nunc pro tunc!!
Res ipsa loquitur!!!
These newlyweds aren't gonna know what hit 'em!!!!
???Invalidate??? Heck wouldn't they mean that they'd have to be validated in the 1st place? I don't see the governor allowing these "marriages" with their illegally altered certificates to be certified by the state anytime soon.
Allow me to translate this from it's Slave Party politcal legalese:
Pthpthpthpthpthpth. Suckaaahhhs!!!'
Lockyer rejects halt to nuptials He dismisses governor's as a political ploy (CA RATS ALERT)
Prima Nocta
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Lockyer rejects halt to nuptials
He dismisses governor's demand as a political ploy
Nanette Asimov and Ryan Kim, Chronicle Staff Writer
State Attorney General Bill Lockyer on Saturday rebuffed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's demand that he force an end to San Francisco's same-sex marriages, calling the directive political rhetoric.
"The governor can direct the Highway Patrol. He can direct the next 'Terminator 4' movie if he chooses. But he can't direct the attorney general in the way he's attempted to do," Lockyer said, adding that Schwarzenegger's written directive "was a statement designed for consumption at the Republican convention."
Faxed on Friday night to the home of a Lockyer aide, the governor wrote: "I hereby direct you to take immediate steps to obtain a definitive judicial resolution of this controversy." The message also said that San Francisco's actions to wed gay couples "present an imminent risk to civil order."
Lockyer called that statement "preposterous" and said it is the kind of "exaggerated, hot rhetoric" that risks stirring people up to commit hate crimes.
He said that he and Schwarzenegger have agreed all along that same-sex marriage is illegal under California law. He said it is his duty to defend the state against a lawsuit by San Francisco that calls the state's prohibition against same-sex marriage unconstitutional. Lockyer said his office will file a response early this week.
By dumping the gay marriage hot potato in Lockyer's lap, Schwarzenegger has managed to ease the concerns of his conservative supporters while still staying well clear of an issue he doesn't really need to get involved in.
Schwarzenegger told Republicans at their state convention in Burlingame Friday that he is opposed to gay marriage, but his letter to Lockyer leaves all the heavy lifting on the issue to the attorney general. The fact that Lockyer is a possible Democratic challenger to Schwarzenegger in 2006 is just a bonus for the Republican governor.
Attacking San Francisco has always been a surefire applause line for the conservative activists who typically fill the seats at Republican conventions, and the governor's assault on same-sex marriage brought the crowd to its feet Friday night. On Saturday, the GOP Senate candidates also used the stage to bash Newsom and the city.
"On the issue of civil defiance, San Francisco has to follow the law,'' said Bill Jones, former secretary of state. "It needs to be laid in the lap of the attorney general and he needs to deal with it.''
The tiff at the top between Schwarzenegger and Lockyer serves to clarify the lines of authority in the otherwise messy, often emotional struggle over same-sex marriage, legal experts told The Chronicle on Saturday.
A governor cannot tell an elected attorney general what to do, and neither can he tell a mayor what to do.
"The governor really has very limited authority to do anything in this situation," said Jesse Choper, a constitutional law professor at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall and the school's former dean. "And the mayor does not report to the governor. The mayor is the chief executive officer of the city and county of San Francisco. He works by himself."
Nor, apparently, can a governor tell a judge what to do. Despite urging from Schwarzenegger, a Superior Court judge decided on Friday not to impose a temporary restraining order on the city to halt the marriages.
Legal experts said Saturday that regardless of the legal outcome in California, the question of whether gays and lesbians may marry someone of their own sex is almost certainly destined for federal court.
If California's Supreme Court ultimately upheld the legality of same-sex marriage, a couple might decide to file a joint tax return, said Joseph Grodin, a former state Supreme Court justice. Or, if the court rejected such marriages, a same-sex couple from Massachusetts might attempt the same thing. (Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld same-sex marriages and said the state may issue licenses beginning in May.)
"So if a couple tried to take advantage of the federal law and was rebuffed, then someone may raise the constitutionality of that statue and argue that under the federal Constitution, it is unconstitutional to discriminate," Grodin said.
Under another scenario, Grodin said, the issue might jump to the federal level if another state questioned its obligation to recognize same-sex marriages authorized in California or Massachusetts.
"One way or the other, the issue of gay marriage is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court," he said.
Two recent rulings also lend favor to the viability of same-sex marriage, said Vikram Amar, a professor at Hastings College of the Law. One is the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he said. And the other is the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that invalidated a Texas law, which said homosexuality was illegal. The high court's ruling made such sodomy laws illegal everywhere, he said.
"The court was clear that that wasn't about marriage," Amar said. "But together, these rulings suggest that both state and federal constitutions have something to say about discriminating against same-sex couples when it comes to marriage."
Looming in the background, Amar said, is the possibility that Congress would propose a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, which would have to be ratified by three quarters of states.
"Then it wouldn't matter what (state law) had to say on the issue," Amar said.
Meanwhile, in San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom said he will continue allowing same-sex marriages until a judge says otherwise.
"I'll respectfully keep moving forward and doing the right thing and stopping the practice of discrimination," said Newsom, as he paused for an event honoring black heritage at Yerba Buena Gardens.
He brushed aside criticism from U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, fellow California Democrats who said last week that Newsom was wrong to defy state law and to force the sticky issue in an election year.
"Next year won't be the best time, and the year after won't be," Newsom said. "There's midyear elections, mayoral elections and governor elections. There will never be the best time. It's the same script."
Newsom said he has received threats but declined to elaborate. Flanking the mayor were a pair of suited body guards not often seen at the mayor's public appearances before the weddings began on Feb. 12.
Newsom acknowledged he is taking the issue of security seriously, adding that "you don't do the same things you did yesterday, every day."
This would indicate it was not a reversal.
Hey ABC: you can't "invalidate" that which was never valid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.