[Mo1]

And their reason was???

[ambrose]

       www.sfgate.com        Return to regular view

Calif. Supreme Court won't immediately stop same-sex marriages
DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer
Friday, February 27, 2004
©2004 Associated Press

URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/02/27/state1953EST0218.DTL

(02-27) 17:09 PST SAN FRANCISCO (AP) --

The California Supreme Court declined a request Friday by Attorney General Bill Lockyer to immediately shut down San Francisco's gay weddings.

Lockyer had asked the high court to take the matter under urgent consideration, to instruct San Francisco officials to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses and to nullify the more than 3,400 marriages already performed.

Instead, the justices told the city and a conservative group that opposes gay marriages to file new legal briefs by March 5 in response to the attorney general's petition.

Locker has been under fire from every side since San Francisco, under a directive from Mayor Gavin Newsom, began issuing the marriage licenses two weeks ago.

Newsom sued the state last week on grounds that California's marriage laws -- which say a marriage is only between and man and a woman -- violate the state constitution's equal protection clause.

Pressure on Lockyer, a Democrat and the state's top law enforcer, intensified when Republican Schwarzenegger directed him to "take immediate steps" to halt San Francisco's marriage march.

Lockyer, without taking a position on whether same-sex marriages should be deemed constitutional, told the justices it was a matter for the courts, not Newsom, to decide.

"The genius of our legal system is in the orderly way our laws can be changed, by the Legislature or by a vote of the people through the initiative process, to reflect current wisdom or societal values," he wrote. "A law can be struck down by an appropriate tribunal if the law is determined, through our judicial process, to be inconsistent with basic rights or higher legal authority."

Regardless of the Friday order, the San Francisco-based Supreme Court not indicate whether they would decide the issue. The seven justices usually are loath to decide cases until they work their way up through the lower courts, which this case has not.

"It's a matter of statewide concern and voters want to know, Californians want to know and couples that participated in ceremonies need to know the status of their relationship," Lockyer said in Anaheim on Friday.

Supporters of the marriages have criticized Lockyer for rushing the issue to the state's highest court, while opponents of same-sex marriages have criticized Lockyer for not acting sooner.

Dennis Herrera, San Francisco's city attorney, said Lockyer "makes an unconvincing case."

The rush to the altar by gay couples this month is rooted in a November decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated that state's constitution. The court reaffirmed the decision this month, clearing the way for full-fledged gay marriages by mid-May.

Since Newsom enlisted city officials on Feb. 12 to begin performing gay weddings, other local officials have joined in -- a county clerk in New Mexico issued 26 licenses before that state's attorney general declared them invalid, and on Friday, a third front in the culture war opened when 21 gay couples exchanged vows on the village hall steps in New Paltz, N.Y.

"What we're witnessing in America today is the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation," said New Paltz' Green Party mayor, Jason West.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer refused to block the New Paltz ceremonies and did not issue an opinion on whether the marriages were legal. "The validity of the marriages and the legality of the mayor's action will be determined in due course in the courts," Spitzer said.

Elsewhere in the country, gay and lesbian couples challenged local officials on the marriage issue. In Iowa City, Iowa, more than 30 gay and lesbian couples were denied marriage licenses by an openly lesbian county official who said she must uphold the law.

President Bush, citing the Massachusetts decision and the parade of weddings in San Francisco, backed a federal constitutional amendment Tuesday to bar such marriages. "A few judges and local authorities," Bush said, "are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization."

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. Massachusetts is one of many states where lawmakers are considering a state constitutional amendment to bar the marriages.

Lockyer said the court's action is 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.

Already Friday, the Social Security Administration said it won't accept any licenses from San Francisco as proof of marriage until the questions are resolved.

"Until the issue of the legal validity of the licenses issued by San Francisco is resolved, thousands of holders of same-sex marriage licenses will remain in a foam of legal limbo," Lockyer wrote.

The California Supreme Court has a history of addressing marriage and gay rights cases. It was the first state high court in the nation to legalize interracial marriage 56 years ago. Twenty-five years ago, the court upheld gay rights by saying businesses could not arbitrarily discriminate against homosexuals.

The justices also have not indicated whether they would decide the merits of the petition filed Wednesday by the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group that also wants the court to nullify all the weddings.

Lower court judges declined to immediately rule last week on the group's lawsuit, which asserts that Newsom does not have the authority to subvert California marital laws.

Meanwhile, Republican activists who helped mount the recall of former Gov. Gray Davis last year have announced plans to seek the removal of Lockyer, who they say has "neglected his duty" to enforce state marriage laws.

Lockyer denied that he was pressured by Schwarzenegger or derelict in his duties, saying he decided to intervene after the local courts failed to stop the marriages.

Friday's petition is Lockyer v. San Francisco, S122923. Wednesday's is Lewis v. Alfaro, S122865.

---

Editors: Associated Press Writer Lynn Elber in Anaheim contributed to this report. David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for a decade.

©2004 Associated Press  

[gawd]

I've never understood the "undermine the institution of marriage" argument. with divorce rates around 50%, there ain't much left to undermine.
these people love each other like any other couple.. I say, if they really want to get married, then whatever...

[Porterville]

And so the intense backlash against the courts begins...

[Cubs Fan]

I expecn we're going to see a lot more of this style of play

Liberal judges covering for liberal lawbreakers and conservatives threatening cumbersome amendments to stop them.

If that happens we are in big trouble.

I'd rather see us beat them at their own game. Example urge all white kids to put down black or latino on their college entrance apps. (as another Freeper said) Have conservative teachers out up ten commandments in their classrooms etc.

[KQQL]

THE CA law Will be turned over by CA SC//under equal rights/protection......

Marriage law Probably violates CA Constitution

[SandRat]

Move to Yuma Arizona while property is affordable. The soon to be, Newest Hot Selling Ocean Front Property (post the Big Quake and the whole bloody state sinks like Atlantis.)

[StoneColdTaxHater]

I have had enough! We the straight people of America are tired of being made out to be ignorant red-neck bigots. The gays tell us "who are you to tell us we can't get married" I say "Who are you to tell soceity there can be no limits on behvior?" ALL people know what a marriage is yet normal Americans have to ask for a constitutional amendment to define something we already know. If the gays want to re-define marriage, let THEM get the amendment to change it. When we begin to tolerate any and all behavior we begin to rot from within. Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying soceity.

[Datom]

As long as this stays alive the liberals will go nuts. They ie: Barney "our boy lollipop" Franks do not want an issue that 60% of the population is against to stay in the news.

It creates problems for the Dims with blacks and Hispanics. It is proveing the conservatives point that judges - many appointed by Clinton - are not enforcing law but making it.

Kerry and the liberals are in deep trouble with this. So let them go. The more gays do "in your face" and the more judges support them the better off conservative are.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

So a violation of the state constitution is no problemo for the CA Supremes.

[timydnuc]

This is the perfect example of the judiciary overruling the will and the law of the People. Is this not judicial tyranny? Of course it is.

Impeachment, removal from the bench. You bet! Start the action now, the message will be sent through out the courts. Deny the law made and implemented by the People and you will have an early retirement, with disgrace.

[ladyinred]

Exactly what I knew would happen, and so did the blatant law breaking stinking liberals!

[ZULU]

WOW!!!

What a shocker!!! A State Supreme Court refusing to enforce a state law!! And in Kalifornia of all places!!!

The ARROGANCE of these judges knows no limits!!

(They must have called Deborah Poritz, the New Jersey State Supreme Court Chief Justicess for advice. She would have told them ##@@!!!&** the law. You're the Court, make your own laws!!)

[harpo11]

Damn. Why the hell are we paying taxes which support and pay the salaries and benefits for activist judges and outlaw elected officials if all they do is spit it in our faces and subvert the rule of law?

[marshmallow]

We've just about completed the full picture, now.

We've ripped all reference to God from public buildings and made it an offence to pray in schools. We've made the killing of the unborn legal and we harass those who attempt to stop it. Now the same governments which refuse to allow prayer in schools are elevating sodomy to the same level as the God -given sacrament of marriage.

Sodom and Gomorrah is almost built. Time to turn our backs on this den of iniquity.

9/11 was meant to be a spiritual wake-up call for this country. We've responded by plunging deeper into godlessness and rebellion.

Tragic. Difficult times await us.

[Imal]

The balloon has gone up.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - BAD NEWS!

The CA Nazgul don't do their job. Idiot. Fools.

Let me know if you want on or off this list.

[VxH]

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit...

It's the only way to be sure.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

As far as I'm concerned, the mayor of SF should be under arrest.

[No Dems 2004]

Another spineless court ... when r they going to stand up for what's right and enforce the law? What's next ... declaring Proposition 22 as 'unconstitutional'? Honestly, I'm so sick of the spineless courts.

Ironically, half of me hopes they do legalize it because I want the FMA to pass in Washington. The Dems in swing states are going to have to wake up on the issue sooner or later.

Some of you might find it interesting that both the leading Dem candidates in the Louisiana and South Carolina senate races have endorsed the amendment (Breaux is against it).