Posted on 03/06/2004 6:12:51 AM PST by calcowgirl
SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorneys for the city of San Francisco are ready to take their fight over gay marriage all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Arguing that municipal authorities are “independently responsible” to uphold the U.S. Constitution, city attorneys Friday increased the chance that the nation’s highest court would be needed to decide the legality of San Francisco’s same-sex marriages.
In documents filed with the California Supreme Court, the city’s attorneys said that nothing in the state constitution requires local officials to obey laws they believe infringe on the civil rights of their citizens.
The filing was a response to efforts by the state attorney general and a Christian public interest law firm to invalidate the 3,632 same-sex marriages that have been sanctioned in San Francisco during the last three weeks.
“Their rush to force immediate obeisance to discriminatory marriage laws asks this court to ignore our decentralized, federalist constitutional democracy,” City Attorney Dennis Herrera wrote in defense of the city’s defiance. “Barring local governments from taking independent actions to conform their conduct to the state and federal constitutions would undermine this system of government.”
Herrera said later that by invoking the federal constitution, his staff had assured that the case would “potentially, certainly” wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court if the California court rules against the city.
“It is our position, and we know it’s fairly strong, that the equal protection clause of the state and federal constitutions protects all people, not just straight people,” Herrera said.
The state Supreme Court had ordered the city to respond to a pair of petitions asking for a prompt judicial declaration on the legality of the same-sex marriages, but the justices have not indicated when they might rule in the case.
Justices could act on the petitions already filed, schedule a future hearing on the issues, or send the matter to a lower court for trial.
“This is a no-brainer - it’s an open-and-shut case,” said Randy Thomasson, the executive director of the Campaign for California Families, one of the conservative groups trying to halt the weddings.
“The state Supreme Court should have no problem putting a restraining order. ... San Francisco has been breaking the law and turning marriage upside down for more than three weeks now. People are tired of this. The system of law is tired of it too.”
Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, who are trying to stop the weddings, argue that an existing section of the California constitution prohibits “administrative agencies” of the state from declaring laws unconstitutional on their own.
The Alliance Defense Fund also filed a supplemental legal brief Friday that included declarations from experts that same-sex unions would cause severe social problems and higher suicide rates among children of gay couples. The organization filed its petition on behalf of three San Francisco residents who oppose marriage rights for same-sex couples.
“Children who don’t come from traditional families suffer from higher rates of social harms,” ADF lawyer Robert Tyler said at a news conference.
The attorney general and the Alliance Defense Fund have asked the Supreme Court to leapfrog the lower court where legal challenges to the disputed marriage licenses also have been lodged. Herrera wants the Supreme Court to decline to accept the case for now.
Hint to Democrats: this isn't something th American public wants. You can slice it and dice it, but gay marriage isn't going to win majority support.
Please note: it does not mention homsexuals at all.
It baseically bans
"whatever-else-a-deviant-mind-can-think-of" marriage.
The could easily be called the polygamy ban.
| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| The Stamp of Normality |
Odd, yes. And predictable too.
Let these social and biological deviants have their ceremonies . What does it matter as long as these ceremonies have no legal standing this is much to do about nothing. If there is a real fear that our judicial will overturn common sense and morality then either ignore, eliminate or replace them.
The proposed constitutional amendment is a misplaced knee jerk. The critics are right on this issue. Our Constitution is a document the protects civil rights. Deviancy can be controlled by simple civil law without altering the intent of the Constitution. Discrimination should be handled on a personal level within the protections provided by our Constitution. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is best defined by community standards.
Let's get on with our lives and spend our energies on things that matter.
.
My observation didn't warrant a leap to that conclusion.
City Manager Julio Avael continues to argue that it’s okay for a cop to have sex with a 17-year-old-boy. I advised: then either ignore, eliminate or replace them.
I suggested: Deviancy can be controlled by simple civil law without altering the intent of the Constitution. The courts acknowledged this fact when the 5th District Court of Appeals ordered the man to be resentanced to 26 years in prison!
I further observed: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is best defined by community standards. Apparently Mr. Cooper, the author of this piece sees it that way also.
Mr. Cooper and I obviously both agree that Discrimination should be handled on a personal level
.
Then it's time to clean up their act, or isolate them.
He obviously has no idea what "discriminatory," "marriage," "law," "federalist," "constitution," or "democracy" mean.
Which raises the question: Did Lockyer inform Gavin Newsom and his band of high-heel goose steppers of this when he was given the heads-up that Newsom was about to do just that?
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.